I don’t write many checks anymore.

When I started my practice in 2000 I wrote a lot. Paychecks for my staff, my rent, insurance, IRA contributions, federal & state withholding, payments on my EMG machine, pretty much everything.

Checks are old. We’ve been using them in some form for roughly 2000 years.

But the online world has changed a lot of that. Now I write maybe 2-3 a month. I could probably do fewer, but haven’t bothered to set those accounts up that way.

I recently was down to my last few checks, so ordered replacements. The minimum order was 600. As I unpacked the box I realized they’re probably the last ones I’ll need, both because checks are gradually passing by and because there are more days behind in my neurology career than ahead.

The checks are a minor thing, but they do make you think. Certainly we’re in the last generation of people who will ever need to use paper checks. Some phrases like “blank check” will likely be with us long after they’re gone (like “dialing a phone”), but the real deal is heading the same way as 8-Track and VHS tapes.

As my 600 checks dwindle down, realistically, so will my career. There is no rewind button on life. I have no desire to leave medicine right now, but the passage of time changes things.

Does that mean I, like my checks, am also getting obsolete?

I hope not. I’d like to think I still have something to offer. I have 30 years of neurology experience behind me, and try to keep up to date on my field. My patients and staff depend on me to bring my best to the office every day.

I hope to stay that way to the end. I’d rather leave voluntarily, still at the top of my game. Even if I end up leaving a few unused checks behind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

I don’t write many checks anymore.

When I started my practice in 2000 I wrote a lot. Paychecks for my staff, my rent, insurance, IRA contributions, federal & state withholding, payments on my EMG machine, pretty much everything.

Checks are old. We’ve been using them in some form for roughly 2000 years.

But the online world has changed a lot of that. Now I write maybe 2-3 a month. I could probably do fewer, but haven’t bothered to set those accounts up that way.

I recently was down to my last few checks, so ordered replacements. The minimum order was 600. As I unpacked the box I realized they’re probably the last ones I’ll need, both because checks are gradually passing by and because there are more days behind in my neurology career than ahead.

The checks are a minor thing, but they do make you think. Certainly we’re in the last generation of people who will ever need to use paper checks. Some phrases like “blank check” will likely be with us long after they’re gone (like “dialing a phone”), but the real deal is heading the same way as 8-Track and VHS tapes.

As my 600 checks dwindle down, realistically, so will my career. There is no rewind button on life. I have no desire to leave medicine right now, but the passage of time changes things.

Does that mean I, like my checks, am also getting obsolete?

I hope not. I’d like to think I still have something to offer. I have 30 years of neurology experience behind me, and try to keep up to date on my field. My patients and staff depend on me to bring my best to the office every day.

I hope to stay that way to the end. I’d rather leave voluntarily, still at the top of my game. Even if I end up leaving a few unused checks behind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

I don’t write many checks anymore.

When I started my practice in 2000 I wrote a lot. Paychecks for my staff, my rent, insurance, IRA contributions, federal & state withholding, payments on my EMG machine, pretty much everything.

Checks are old. We’ve been using them in some form for roughly 2000 years.

But the online world has changed a lot of that. Now I write maybe 2-3 a month. I could probably do fewer, but haven’t bothered to set those accounts up that way.

I recently was down to my last few checks, so ordered replacements. The minimum order was 600. As I unpacked the box I realized they’re probably the last ones I’ll need, both because checks are gradually passing by and because there are more days behind in my neurology career than ahead.

The checks are a minor thing, but they do make you think. Certainly we’re in the last generation of people who will ever need to use paper checks. Some phrases like “blank check” will likely be with us long after they’re gone (like “dialing a phone”), but the real deal is heading the same way as 8-Track and VHS tapes.

As my 600 checks dwindle down, realistically, so will my career. There is no rewind button on life. I have no desire to leave medicine right now, but the passage of time changes things.

Does that mean I, like my checks, am also getting obsolete?

I hope not. I’d like to think I still have something to offer. I have 30 years of neurology experience behind me, and try to keep up to date on my field. My patients and staff depend on me to bring my best to the office every day.

I hope to stay that way to the end. I’d rather leave voluntarily, still at the top of my game. Even if I end up leaving a few unused checks behind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

PARIS — Intermediate valve sizes are at least as safe and effective as the standard sizes now available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), according to an international randomized trial.

In a head-to-head comparison, the LANDMARK trial looked at valves from the new balloon-expandable Myval^® by Merril Life Sciences and compared them with the balloon-expandable Sapien^® from Edwards Lifesciences and the self-expanding Evolut^® valve from Medtronic.

The new Myval platform offers multiple valves sized at 1.5 mm intervals, while the other two have valves that are generally sized at intervals of 3.0 mm.

The platform with intermediate sizes provided a nonsignificant numerical advantage in both safety and efficacy over its rivals, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, from the Department of Cardiology at the University of Galway in Galway, Ireland, reported at the Congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions 2024.

The LANDMARK Trial

The trial enrolled 768 patients at 31 sites in 16 countries. They were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the new platform or to one of the standards to compare the concept of intermediate valves with contemporary standards.

Seven sizes of Myval valves were used in the study, ranging from 20 mm to 29 mm at 1.5 mm increments. Two more sizes, 30.5 mm and 32.0 mm, were not included in this analysis but are being following in a registry.

The study also used Sapien valves sized 20 mm, 23 mm, 26 mm, and 29 mm and Evolut valves sized 26 mm, 29 mm, and 34 mm. There is also a 23 mm Evolut valve available, but it was not selected by any of the participating investigators.

Of the 336 patients given Myval valves, 48% were an intermediate size not available on one of the other platforms.

For the primary composite efficacy and safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, fatal or nonfatal strokes, VARC 3 or 4 bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular injury, moderate or greater valve regurgitation, or conduction disturbances requiring a new permanent pacemaker, the difference in absolute risk was slightly lower in the Myval arm, at 24.7% vs 27.0%, but not statistically significant. With that numerical difference favoring the Myval platform, noninferiority was demonstrated at 30 days with a high level of statistical significance, Dr. Serruys reported.

When each endpoint, with the composite primary endpoint, was evaluated separately in a secondary analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke incidence were identical in the two arms. 

Major bleeding and acute kidney injury were nonsignificantly more common in the Myval group, while the incidence of moderate or greater valve regurgitation, placement of a new permanent pacemaker, and major vascular complications were nonsignificantly less common.

Precise Matching

The effective orifice area was consistently higher in the group receiving an intermediate valve relative to a Sapien valve. This was not significant for the 20 mm valve size, but it did reach statistical significance for the rest of the sizes. In contrast, there was no significant difference with the Evolut series.

The data suggest that intermediate sizes “enable precise and appropriate matching of devices to an individual anatomy,” at least relative to Sapien, said Dr. Serruys.

Martin Leon, MD, of Columbia University in New York, called LANDMARK an important step for considering how comparative trials should be conducted in the future.

However, he challenged the idea that this study compared devices for both safety and efficacy. Despite the evidence it provides on device and procedural safety over the short-term, he said few conclusions can be drawn about comparative efficacy after just 30 days. Rather, the true comparative value of the trial will be derived from “rigorous late follow-up,” he said.

Longer Follow-Up to Come

Dr. Serruys acknowledged that the differences seen after 30 days have uncertain relevance to longer-term outcomes. He is planning to conduct a 10-year follow-up that “will unravel whether the documented effective orifice area of the Myval platform will have a beneficial impact on long-term patient prognosis and valve durability,” he said.

Leon agreed that, so far, these data do suggest superior hemodynamic performance with the intermediate sizing relative to valves in the Sapien platform, but the same cannot be said for the Evolut platform, and he pointed out that pooling data from the two platforms for the primary endpoint “makes comparisons difficult.”

And with about half of patients still fitted with the sizes already available, he said a deeper understanding was needed of how “adjustment strategies,” such as oversizing, affect long-term outcomes relative to platforms, such as Myval, with more valve sizes.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Intermediate valve sizes are at least as safe and effective as the standard sizes now available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), according to an international randomized trial.

In a head-to-head comparison, the LANDMARK trial looked at valves from the new balloon-expandable Myval^® by Merril Life Sciences and compared them with the balloon-expandable Sapien^® from Edwards Lifesciences and the self-expanding Evolut^® valve from Medtronic.

The new Myval platform offers multiple valves sized at 1.5 mm intervals, while the other two have valves that are generally sized at intervals of 3.0 mm.

The platform with intermediate sizes provided a nonsignificant numerical advantage in both safety and efficacy over its rivals, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, from the Department of Cardiology at the University of Galway in Galway, Ireland, reported at the Congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions 2024.

The LANDMARK Trial

The trial enrolled 768 patients at 31 sites in 16 countries. They were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the new platform or to one of the standards to compare the concept of intermediate valves with contemporary standards.

Seven sizes of Myval valves were used in the study, ranging from 20 mm to 29 mm at 1.5 mm increments. Two more sizes, 30.5 mm and 32.0 mm, were not included in this analysis but are being following in a registry.

The study also used Sapien valves sized 20 mm, 23 mm, 26 mm, and 29 mm and Evolut valves sized 26 mm, 29 mm, and 34 mm. There is also a 23 mm Evolut valve available, but it was not selected by any of the participating investigators.

Of the 336 patients given Myval valves, 48% were an intermediate size not available on one of the other platforms.

For the primary composite efficacy and safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, fatal or nonfatal strokes, VARC 3 or 4 bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular injury, moderate or greater valve regurgitation, or conduction disturbances requiring a new permanent pacemaker, the difference in absolute risk was slightly lower in the Myval arm, at 24.7% vs 27.0%, but not statistically significant. With that numerical difference favoring the Myval platform, noninferiority was demonstrated at 30 days with a high level of statistical significance, Dr. Serruys reported.

When each endpoint, with the composite primary endpoint, was evaluated separately in a secondary analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke incidence were identical in the two arms. 

Major bleeding and acute kidney injury were nonsignificantly more common in the Myval group, while the incidence of moderate or greater valve regurgitation, placement of a new permanent pacemaker, and major vascular complications were nonsignificantly less common.

Precise Matching

The effective orifice area was consistently higher in the group receiving an intermediate valve relative to a Sapien valve. This was not significant for the 20 mm valve size, but it did reach statistical significance for the rest of the sizes. In contrast, there was no significant difference with the Evolut series.

The data suggest that intermediate sizes “enable precise and appropriate matching of devices to an individual anatomy,” at least relative to Sapien, said Dr. Serruys.

Martin Leon, MD, of Columbia University in New York, called LANDMARK an important step for considering how comparative trials should be conducted in the future.

However, he challenged the idea that this study compared devices for both safety and efficacy. Despite the evidence it provides on device and procedural safety over the short-term, he said few conclusions can be drawn about comparative efficacy after just 30 days. Rather, the true comparative value of the trial will be derived from “rigorous late follow-up,” he said.

Longer Follow-Up to Come

Dr. Serruys acknowledged that the differences seen after 30 days have uncertain relevance to longer-term outcomes. He is planning to conduct a 10-year follow-up that “will unravel whether the documented effective orifice area of the Myval platform will have a beneficial impact on long-term patient prognosis and valve durability,” he said.

Leon agreed that, so far, these data do suggest superior hemodynamic performance with the intermediate sizing relative to valves in the Sapien platform, but the same cannot be said for the Evolut platform, and he pointed out that pooling data from the two platforms for the primary endpoint “makes comparisons difficult.”

And with about half of patients still fitted with the sizes already available, he said a deeper understanding was needed of how “adjustment strategies,” such as oversizing, affect long-term outcomes relative to platforms, such as Myval, with more valve sizes.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Intermediate valve sizes are at least as safe and effective as the standard sizes now available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), according to an international randomized trial.

In a head-to-head comparison, the LANDMARK trial looked at valves from the new balloon-expandable Myval^® by Merril Life Sciences and compared them with the balloon-expandable Sapien^® from Edwards Lifesciences and the self-expanding Evolut^® valve from Medtronic.

The new Myval platform offers multiple valves sized at 1.5 mm intervals, while the other two have valves that are generally sized at intervals of 3.0 mm.

The platform with intermediate sizes provided a nonsignificant numerical advantage in both safety and efficacy over its rivals, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, from the Department of Cardiology at the University of Galway in Galway, Ireland, reported at the Congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions 2024.

The LANDMARK Trial

The trial enrolled 768 patients at 31 sites in 16 countries. They were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the new platform or to one of the standards to compare the concept of intermediate valves with contemporary standards.

Seven sizes of Myval valves were used in the study, ranging from 20 mm to 29 mm at 1.5 mm increments. Two more sizes, 30.5 mm and 32.0 mm, were not included in this analysis but are being following in a registry.

The study also used Sapien valves sized 20 mm, 23 mm, 26 mm, and 29 mm and Evolut valves sized 26 mm, 29 mm, and 34 mm. There is also a 23 mm Evolut valve available, but it was not selected by any of the participating investigators.

Of the 336 patients given Myval valves, 48% were an intermediate size not available on one of the other platforms.

For the primary composite efficacy and safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, fatal or nonfatal strokes, VARC 3 or 4 bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular injury, moderate or greater valve regurgitation, or conduction disturbances requiring a new permanent pacemaker, the difference in absolute risk was slightly lower in the Myval arm, at 24.7% vs 27.0%, but not statistically significant. With that numerical difference favoring the Myval platform, noninferiority was demonstrated at 30 days with a high level of statistical significance, Dr. Serruys reported.

When each endpoint, with the composite primary endpoint, was evaluated separately in a secondary analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke incidence were identical in the two arms. 

Major bleeding and acute kidney injury were nonsignificantly more common in the Myval group, while the incidence of moderate or greater valve regurgitation, placement of a new permanent pacemaker, and major vascular complications were nonsignificantly less common.

Precise Matching

The effective orifice area was consistently higher in the group receiving an intermediate valve relative to a Sapien valve. This was not significant for the 20 mm valve size, but it did reach statistical significance for the rest of the sizes. In contrast, there was no significant difference with the Evolut series.

The data suggest that intermediate sizes “enable precise and appropriate matching of devices to an individual anatomy,” at least relative to Sapien, said Dr. Serruys.

Martin Leon, MD, of Columbia University in New York, called LANDMARK an important step for considering how comparative trials should be conducted in the future.

However, he challenged the idea that this study compared devices for both safety and efficacy. Despite the evidence it provides on device and procedural safety over the short-term, he said few conclusions can be drawn about comparative efficacy after just 30 days. Rather, the true comparative value of the trial will be derived from “rigorous late follow-up,” he said.

Longer Follow-Up to Come

Dr. Serruys acknowledged that the differences seen after 30 days have uncertain relevance to longer-term outcomes. He is planning to conduct a 10-year follow-up that “will unravel whether the documented effective orifice area of the Myval platform will have a beneficial impact on long-term patient prognosis and valve durability,” he said.

Leon agreed that, so far, these data do suggest superior hemodynamic performance with the intermediate sizing relative to valves in the Sapien platform, but the same cannot be said for the Evolut platform, and he pointed out that pooling data from the two platforms for the primary endpoint “makes comparisons difficult.”

And with about half of patients still fitted with the sizes already available, he said a deeper understanding was needed of how “adjustment strategies,” such as oversizing, affect long-term outcomes relative to platforms, such as Myval, with more valve sizes.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — There is a high prevalence of emotional and physical burden associated with being a Mohs surgeon, particularly among women and younger surgeons, according to new findings. In addition, most surgeons did not feel prepared to manage or prevent these symptoms.

“Our study highlights the need to implement ergonomic training and emotion-focused coping skills, as part of fellowship training and the continuing medical education curriculum, to alleviate and prevent emotional burnout,” said lead author Eduardo A. Michelen-Gómez, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juano. “This interaction also must be designed to cater to generation and sex specific needs.”

Dr. Michelen-Gómez presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Mohs is a demanding procedure that involves repetitive motion, strict attention to detail, and high practice efficiency, all of which must be balanced with the need to prioritize patient safety and well-being. “All of these factors predispose Mohs surgeons to be at an increased risk of physical and emotional stress,” he said.

Despite these concerns, however, the literature is limited concerning work-associated stressors among Mohs surgeons. To further explore this issue, Dr. Michelen-Gómez and colleagues conducted a survey study of ACMS members to investigate not only the prevalence of emotional and physical stressors associated with being a Mohs surgeon but also what specific actions physicians were taking to prevent and/or treat these stressors.

They designed a 21-question cross-sectional electronic survey that was sent to all active ACMS members in 2023. Outcomes evaluated were gender, years of practice, concern for and prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal disorders, emotional stress and burnout, and surgeon’s knowledge and training to manage these symptoms. A total of 473 Mohs surgeons responded.
 

High Prevalence of Injury and Burnout

“Almost 90% of respondents reported moderate to severe concern for occupational musculoskeletal injuries,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. “The prevalence of these injuries was 68%, with neck injuries being the most common complaint. Of the entire cohort, 67% have adopted ergonomic practices patterns.”

Female surgeons had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries than men, and there was no correlation between years of practice and prevalence of these injuries.

Their results also showed that 70% of respondents reported experiencing psychological and emotional stress or burnout associated with being a Mohs surgeon. The cause of emotional stress differed between men and women. “In males, the most common cause was patient care–related anxiety, while in females, it was finding an adequate work-life balance,” he said.

Surgeons with fewer years of experience were more likely to experience emotional stress (P = .01), and female surgeons had a higher prevalence of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders (71.0% and 71.4%, respectively) than male surgeons (67.7% and 65.2%, respectively).

To prevent or manage musculoskeletal injury, respondents reported using interventions such as physical therapy, yoga/stretching/Pilates, massage therapy, cupping, and using a physical trainer. Specific actions for preventing or managing emotional stress and burnout included engaging with a therapist, working with a life coach, practicing meditation or mindfulness, journaling, relying on religion or spirituality, and exercise.

However, among those who reported musculoskeletal disorders or emotional stress, only 40.56% and 46.67%, respectively, felt they had sufficient knowledge and the resources to manage them appropriately.

“In addition, we found a positive correlation between the development of psychological stress and physical issues,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. Future studies can include determining the most effective methods to address the emotional and physical stressors of practicing Mohs Surgery.”

Asked to comment on the study findings, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the real-world take-home messages from this study are twofold.

“It is important to focus on physician wellness and prevention of burnout and physical injury to protect our physician workforce, and two, we should equip physicians-in-training with tools to protect their physical and emotional health,” he said.

Dr. Michelen-Gómez and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — There is a high prevalence of emotional and physical burden associated with being a Mohs surgeon, particularly among women and younger surgeons, according to new findings. In addition, most surgeons did not feel prepared to manage or prevent these symptoms.

“Our study highlights the need to implement ergonomic training and emotion-focused coping skills, as part of fellowship training and the continuing medical education curriculum, to alleviate and prevent emotional burnout,” said lead author Eduardo A. Michelen-Gómez, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juano. “This interaction also must be designed to cater to generation and sex specific needs.”

Dr. Michelen-Gómez presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Mohs is a demanding procedure that involves repetitive motion, strict attention to detail, and high practice efficiency, all of which must be balanced with the need to prioritize patient safety and well-being. “All of these factors predispose Mohs surgeons to be at an increased risk of physical and emotional stress,” he said.

Despite these concerns, however, the literature is limited concerning work-associated stressors among Mohs surgeons. To further explore this issue, Dr. Michelen-Gómez and colleagues conducted a survey study of ACMS members to investigate not only the prevalence of emotional and physical stressors associated with being a Mohs surgeon but also what specific actions physicians were taking to prevent and/or treat these stressors.

They designed a 21-question cross-sectional electronic survey that was sent to all active ACMS members in 2023. Outcomes evaluated were gender, years of practice, concern for and prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal disorders, emotional stress and burnout, and surgeon’s knowledge and training to manage these symptoms. A total of 473 Mohs surgeons responded.
 

High Prevalence of Injury and Burnout

“Almost 90% of respondents reported moderate to severe concern for occupational musculoskeletal injuries,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. “The prevalence of these injuries was 68%, with neck injuries being the most common complaint. Of the entire cohort, 67% have adopted ergonomic practices patterns.”

Female surgeons had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries than men, and there was no correlation between years of practice and prevalence of these injuries.

Their results also showed that 70% of respondents reported experiencing psychological and emotional stress or burnout associated with being a Mohs surgeon. The cause of emotional stress differed between men and women. “In males, the most common cause was patient care–related anxiety, while in females, it was finding an adequate work-life balance,” he said.

Surgeons with fewer years of experience were more likely to experience emotional stress (P = .01), and female surgeons had a higher prevalence of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders (71.0% and 71.4%, respectively) than male surgeons (67.7% and 65.2%, respectively).

To prevent or manage musculoskeletal injury, respondents reported using interventions such as physical therapy, yoga/stretching/Pilates, massage therapy, cupping, and using a physical trainer. Specific actions for preventing or managing emotional stress and burnout included engaging with a therapist, working with a life coach, practicing meditation or mindfulness, journaling, relying on religion or spirituality, and exercise.

However, among those who reported musculoskeletal disorders or emotional stress, only 40.56% and 46.67%, respectively, felt they had sufficient knowledge and the resources to manage them appropriately.

“In addition, we found a positive correlation between the development of psychological stress and physical issues,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. Future studies can include determining the most effective methods to address the emotional and physical stressors of practicing Mohs Surgery.”

Asked to comment on the study findings, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the real-world take-home messages from this study are twofold.

“It is important to focus on physician wellness and prevention of burnout and physical injury to protect our physician workforce, and two, we should equip physicians-in-training with tools to protect their physical and emotional health,” he said.

Dr. Michelen-Gómez and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — There is a high prevalence of emotional and physical burden associated with being a Mohs surgeon, particularly among women and younger surgeons, according to new findings. In addition, most surgeons did not feel prepared to manage or prevent these symptoms.

“Our study highlights the need to implement ergonomic training and emotion-focused coping skills, as part of fellowship training and the continuing medical education curriculum, to alleviate and prevent emotional burnout,” said lead author Eduardo A. Michelen-Gómez, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juano. “This interaction also must be designed to cater to generation and sex specific needs.”

Dr. Michelen-Gómez presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Mohs is a demanding procedure that involves repetitive motion, strict attention to detail, and high practice efficiency, all of which must be balanced with the need to prioritize patient safety and well-being. “All of these factors predispose Mohs surgeons to be at an increased risk of physical and emotional stress,” he said.

Despite these concerns, however, the literature is limited concerning work-associated stressors among Mohs surgeons. To further explore this issue, Dr. Michelen-Gómez and colleagues conducted a survey study of ACMS members to investigate not only the prevalence of emotional and physical stressors associated with being a Mohs surgeon but also what specific actions physicians were taking to prevent and/or treat these stressors.

They designed a 21-question cross-sectional electronic survey that was sent to all active ACMS members in 2023. Outcomes evaluated were gender, years of practice, concern for and prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal disorders, emotional stress and burnout, and surgeon’s knowledge and training to manage these symptoms. A total of 473 Mohs surgeons responded.
 

High Prevalence of Injury and Burnout

“Almost 90% of respondents reported moderate to severe concern for occupational musculoskeletal injuries,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. “The prevalence of these injuries was 68%, with neck injuries being the most common complaint. Of the entire cohort, 67% have adopted ergonomic practices patterns.”

Female surgeons had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries than men, and there was no correlation between years of practice and prevalence of these injuries.

Their results also showed that 70% of respondents reported experiencing psychological and emotional stress or burnout associated with being a Mohs surgeon. The cause of emotional stress differed between men and women. “In males, the most common cause was patient care–related anxiety, while in females, it was finding an adequate work-life balance,” he said.

Surgeons with fewer years of experience were more likely to experience emotional stress (P = .01), and female surgeons had a higher prevalence of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders (71.0% and 71.4%, respectively) than male surgeons (67.7% and 65.2%, respectively).

To prevent or manage musculoskeletal injury, respondents reported using interventions such as physical therapy, yoga/stretching/Pilates, massage therapy, cupping, and using a physical trainer. Specific actions for preventing or managing emotional stress and burnout included engaging with a therapist, working with a life coach, practicing meditation or mindfulness, journaling, relying on religion or spirituality, and exercise.

However, among those who reported musculoskeletal disorders or emotional stress, only 40.56% and 46.67%, respectively, felt they had sufficient knowledge and the resources to manage them appropriately.

“In addition, we found a positive correlation between the development of psychological stress and physical issues,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. Future studies can include determining the most effective methods to address the emotional and physical stressors of practicing Mohs Surgery.”

Asked to comment on the study findings, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the real-world take-home messages from this study are twofold.

“It is important to focus on physician wellness and prevention of burnout and physical injury to protect our physician workforce, and two, we should equip physicians-in-training with tools to protect their physical and emotional health,” he said.

Dr. Michelen-Gómez and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — New findings challenge the practice of rapidly lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute ischemic stroke to allow for speedy thrombolysis.

The observational cluster study showed that patients treated in hospitals that followed the guideline-recommended practice of rapidly reducing BP did no better — and actually showed a trend toward worse outcomes — than those treated in hospitals that did not lower BP, even though this meant fewer patient received thrombolysis. 

“We found insufficient evidence to recommend active blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke who have blood pressure levels exceeding the guidelines but are otherwise eligible for thrombolytic therapy,” said senior study author Nyika D. Kruyt, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 

“Our results suggest that if the blood pressure is too high for thrombolysis, then it is best to wait and only treat with thrombolysis if the blood pressure drops spontaneously,” Dr. Kruyt said.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online in The Lancet Neurology. 
 

Guidelines Without Evidence?

Owing to concerns about high BP increasing the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolysis, the original trials evaluating thrombolysis in stroke set an arbitrary threshold of 185/110 mm Hg, which has been incorporated into stroke guidelines. These trials cautioned against lowering BP rapidly, which is not included in guidelines. 

Most stroke centers therefore tend to rapidly lower BP in patients who have values greater than 185/110 mm Hg and who are otherwise eligible for thrombolysis, investigators noted. Because thrombolysis is more effective the earlier it is administered, there is some urgency to reduce the BP quickly when patients first arrive at the hospital. 

“But there has never been any evidence for the lowering of blood pressure with IV [intravenous] antihypertensives before thrombolysis, and some centers have never adopted this approach because of concerns that a rapid decline in blood pressure may reduce perfusion of the brain at a time when there is already ischemia present,” Dr. Kruyt noted. 

However, if BP is lowered quickly, there is a greater chance that patients will not be able to receive thrombolysis because the 4.5-hour time limit could be exceeded.

For the prospective, observational TRUTH study, researchers compared outcomes in 853 patients treated at 27 stroke centers in the Netherlands with an active BP-lowering strategy vs 199 patients treated at 10 hospitals with no such strategy. 

Baseline characteristics of participants in the two groups were similar. 

Results showed a strong trend toward worse outcomes in participants whose BP was lowered, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift toward a worse 90-day functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68). 

This was despite the fact that many more patients whose BP was reduced received thrombolysis (94% vs 52% of those with no BP lowering) and had shorter times to treatment, with average door-to-needle times of 35 minutes (vs 47 minutes among those with no BP lowering). 

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5% of the active BP-lowering group versus 3% of those who did not have their BP lowered (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.62).
 

Reconsider Guidelines?

These results are consistent with those from the INTERACT4 trial, which was also presented at the ESOC 2024 meeting. That trial showed a harmful effect of lowering BP in the ambulance in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but a beneficial effect in patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

“I think the guidelines need to be reconsidered after these studies and we should refrain from active blood pressure–lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

But he acknowledged that not rapidly lowering BP will mean fewer patients will be able to receive thrombolysis within the 4.5-hour treatment window.

Dr. Kruyt estimated that the combination of being eligible for thrombolysis, with the only exclusion criterion being BP greater than 185/110 mm Hg, applies to about 10%-15% of patients. 

“If we have a watch-and-wait policy, then about half of those patients will still get treated with thrombolysis within in the 4.5-hour limit but later than if blood pressure was reduced with IV antihypertensives,” he added. 

Dr. Kruyt noted that there has never been a randomized trial on the practice of BP lowering in order to be able to administer thrombolysis. 

“The 185/110 mm Hg blood pressure level is an arbitrary threshold that was chosen for the original thrombolysis stroke trials,” he said. “I believe we need trials to investigate whether we can give thrombolysis safely to patients with higher blood pressure levels than this, without needing to rapidly reduce the pressure.”
 

Caution Advised

Discussing the TRUTH study at the ESOC meeting, Guillaume Turc, MD, professor of neurology at Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris, said he thought the findings were “very thought provoking.”

Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said the result was surprising, but she advised caution in acting on this finding. 

“I don’t think this study can change practice or guidelines as it is not a randomized trial. Yes, it can generate a hypothesis, but we need more research before changing clinical practice,” she said. 

In an accompanying editorial, Verónica Olavarría, MD, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, also suggested the trial should be interpreted cautiously because there was “insufficient evidence for a definitive conclusion.”

But Dr. Kruyt noted that even though the TRUTH study was not a randomized trial, the results are in line with those of recent randomized trials such as INTERACT4.

He added that the ENCHANTED trial also showed no benefit of intensive BP management immediately after thrombolysis in mild to moderate stroke and even suggested harm in severe stroke. And other trials (OPTIMAL-BP and ENCHANTED2/MT) have shown worse outcomes with BP lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy. 

“All these studies are showing similar signals throughout the whole timeline in acute ischemic stroke. The results are very much in line with each other. I think this strengthens our findings,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

“With this data, I think the guidelines should be revised, and until randomized data become available showing that reducing blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients in order for them to receive early thrombolysis is beneficial, then we should refrain from doing so,” he added.

INTERACT4 investigator Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, agreed. 

“The TRUTH study gives the same message as INTERACT4. They are completely in line with each other, both suggesting harm with blood pressure lowering in acute ischemic stroke. These two together are going to rattle the cage around blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients,” Dr. Anderson said. 

The TRUTH study was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra. Dr. Kruyt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Olavarría reported receiving a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the RECCA registry and honoraria from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — New findings challenge the practice of rapidly lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute ischemic stroke to allow for speedy thrombolysis.

The observational cluster study showed that patients treated in hospitals that followed the guideline-recommended practice of rapidly reducing BP did no better — and actually showed a trend toward worse outcomes — than those treated in hospitals that did not lower BP, even though this meant fewer patient received thrombolysis. 

“We found insufficient evidence to recommend active blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke who have blood pressure levels exceeding the guidelines but are otherwise eligible for thrombolytic therapy,” said senior study author Nyika D. Kruyt, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 

“Our results suggest that if the blood pressure is too high for thrombolysis, then it is best to wait and only treat with thrombolysis if the blood pressure drops spontaneously,” Dr. Kruyt said.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online in The Lancet Neurology. 
 

Guidelines Without Evidence?

Owing to concerns about high BP increasing the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolysis, the original trials evaluating thrombolysis in stroke set an arbitrary threshold of 185/110 mm Hg, which has been incorporated into stroke guidelines. These trials cautioned against lowering BP rapidly, which is not included in guidelines. 

Most stroke centers therefore tend to rapidly lower BP in patients who have values greater than 185/110 mm Hg and who are otherwise eligible for thrombolysis, investigators noted. Because thrombolysis is more effective the earlier it is administered, there is some urgency to reduce the BP quickly when patients first arrive at the hospital. 

“But there has never been any evidence for the lowering of blood pressure with IV [intravenous] antihypertensives before thrombolysis, and some centers have never adopted this approach because of concerns that a rapid decline in blood pressure may reduce perfusion of the brain at a time when there is already ischemia present,” Dr. Kruyt noted. 

However, if BP is lowered quickly, there is a greater chance that patients will not be able to receive thrombolysis because the 4.5-hour time limit could be exceeded.

For the prospective, observational TRUTH study, researchers compared outcomes in 853 patients treated at 27 stroke centers in the Netherlands with an active BP-lowering strategy vs 199 patients treated at 10 hospitals with no such strategy. 

Baseline characteristics of participants in the two groups were similar. 

Results showed a strong trend toward worse outcomes in participants whose BP was lowered, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift toward a worse 90-day functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68). 

This was despite the fact that many more patients whose BP was reduced received thrombolysis (94% vs 52% of those with no BP lowering) and had shorter times to treatment, with average door-to-needle times of 35 minutes (vs 47 minutes among those with no BP lowering). 

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5% of the active BP-lowering group versus 3% of those who did not have their BP lowered (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.62).
 

Reconsider Guidelines?

These results are consistent with those from the INTERACT4 trial, which was also presented at the ESOC 2024 meeting. That trial showed a harmful effect of lowering BP in the ambulance in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but a beneficial effect in patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

“I think the guidelines need to be reconsidered after these studies and we should refrain from active blood pressure–lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

But he acknowledged that not rapidly lowering BP will mean fewer patients will be able to receive thrombolysis within the 4.5-hour treatment window.

Dr. Kruyt estimated that the combination of being eligible for thrombolysis, with the only exclusion criterion being BP greater than 185/110 mm Hg, applies to about 10%-15% of patients. 

“If we have a watch-and-wait policy, then about half of those patients will still get treated with thrombolysis within in the 4.5-hour limit but later than if blood pressure was reduced with IV antihypertensives,” he added. 

Dr. Kruyt noted that there has never been a randomized trial on the practice of BP lowering in order to be able to administer thrombolysis. 

“The 185/110 mm Hg blood pressure level is an arbitrary threshold that was chosen for the original thrombolysis stroke trials,” he said. “I believe we need trials to investigate whether we can give thrombolysis safely to patients with higher blood pressure levels than this, without needing to rapidly reduce the pressure.”
 

Caution Advised

Discussing the TRUTH study at the ESOC meeting, Guillaume Turc, MD, professor of neurology at Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris, said he thought the findings were “very thought provoking.”

Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said the result was surprising, but she advised caution in acting on this finding. 

“I don’t think this study can change practice or guidelines as it is not a randomized trial. Yes, it can generate a hypothesis, but we need more research before changing clinical practice,” she said. 

In an accompanying editorial, Verónica Olavarría, MD, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, also suggested the trial should be interpreted cautiously because there was “insufficient evidence for a definitive conclusion.”

But Dr. Kruyt noted that even though the TRUTH study was not a randomized trial, the results are in line with those of recent randomized trials such as INTERACT4.

He added that the ENCHANTED trial also showed no benefit of intensive BP management immediately after thrombolysis in mild to moderate stroke and even suggested harm in severe stroke. And other trials (OPTIMAL-BP and ENCHANTED2/MT) have shown worse outcomes with BP lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy. 

“All these studies are showing similar signals throughout the whole timeline in acute ischemic stroke. The results are very much in line with each other. I think this strengthens our findings,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

“With this data, I think the guidelines should be revised, and until randomized data become available showing that reducing blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients in order for them to receive early thrombolysis is beneficial, then we should refrain from doing so,” he added.

INTERACT4 investigator Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, agreed. 

“The TRUTH study gives the same message as INTERACT4. They are completely in line with each other, both suggesting harm with blood pressure lowering in acute ischemic stroke. These two together are going to rattle the cage around blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients,” Dr. Anderson said. 

The TRUTH study was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra. Dr. Kruyt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Olavarría reported receiving a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the RECCA registry and honoraria from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — New findings challenge the practice of rapidly lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute ischemic stroke to allow for speedy thrombolysis.

The observational cluster study showed that patients treated in hospitals that followed the guideline-recommended practice of rapidly reducing BP did no better — and actually showed a trend toward worse outcomes — than those treated in hospitals that did not lower BP, even though this meant fewer patient received thrombolysis. 

“We found insufficient evidence to recommend active blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke who have blood pressure levels exceeding the guidelines but are otherwise eligible for thrombolytic therapy,” said senior study author Nyika D. Kruyt, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 

“Our results suggest that if the blood pressure is too high for thrombolysis, then it is best to wait and only treat with thrombolysis if the blood pressure drops spontaneously,” Dr. Kruyt said.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online in The Lancet Neurology. 
 

Guidelines Without Evidence?

Owing to concerns about high BP increasing the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolysis, the original trials evaluating thrombolysis in stroke set an arbitrary threshold of 185/110 mm Hg, which has been incorporated into stroke guidelines. These trials cautioned against lowering BP rapidly, which is not included in guidelines. 

Most stroke centers therefore tend to rapidly lower BP in patients who have values greater than 185/110 mm Hg and who are otherwise eligible for thrombolysis, investigators noted. Because thrombolysis is more effective the earlier it is administered, there is some urgency to reduce the BP quickly when patients first arrive at the hospital. 

“But there has never been any evidence for the lowering of blood pressure with IV [intravenous] antihypertensives before thrombolysis, and some centers have never adopted this approach because of concerns that a rapid decline in blood pressure may reduce perfusion of the brain at a time when there is already ischemia present,” Dr. Kruyt noted. 

However, if BP is lowered quickly, there is a greater chance that patients will not be able to receive thrombolysis because the 4.5-hour time limit could be exceeded.

For the prospective, observational TRUTH study, researchers compared outcomes in 853 patients treated at 27 stroke centers in the Netherlands with an active BP-lowering strategy vs 199 patients treated at 10 hospitals with no such strategy. 

Baseline characteristics of participants in the two groups were similar. 

Results showed a strong trend toward worse outcomes in participants whose BP was lowered, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift toward a worse 90-day functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68). 

This was despite the fact that many more patients whose BP was reduced received thrombolysis (94% vs 52% of those with no BP lowering) and had shorter times to treatment, with average door-to-needle times of 35 minutes (vs 47 minutes among those with no BP lowering). 

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5% of the active BP-lowering group versus 3% of those who did not have their BP lowered (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.62).
 

Reconsider Guidelines?

These results are consistent with those from the INTERACT4 trial, which was also presented at the ESOC 2024 meeting. That trial showed a harmful effect of lowering BP in the ambulance in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but a beneficial effect in patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

“I think the guidelines need to be reconsidered after these studies and we should refrain from active blood pressure–lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

But he acknowledged that not rapidly lowering BP will mean fewer patients will be able to receive thrombolysis within the 4.5-hour treatment window.

Dr. Kruyt estimated that the combination of being eligible for thrombolysis, with the only exclusion criterion being BP greater than 185/110 mm Hg, applies to about 10%-15% of patients. 

“If we have a watch-and-wait policy, then about half of those patients will still get treated with thrombolysis within in the 4.5-hour limit but later than if blood pressure was reduced with IV antihypertensives,” he added. 

Dr. Kruyt noted that there has never been a randomized trial on the practice of BP lowering in order to be able to administer thrombolysis. 

“The 185/110 mm Hg blood pressure level is an arbitrary threshold that was chosen for the original thrombolysis stroke trials,” he said. “I believe we need trials to investigate whether we can give thrombolysis safely to patients with higher blood pressure levels than this, without needing to rapidly reduce the pressure.”
 

Caution Advised

Discussing the TRUTH study at the ESOC meeting, Guillaume Turc, MD, professor of neurology at Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris, said he thought the findings were “very thought provoking.”

Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said the result was surprising, but she advised caution in acting on this finding. 

“I don’t think this study can change practice or guidelines as it is not a randomized trial. Yes, it can generate a hypothesis, but we need more research before changing clinical practice,” she said. 

In an accompanying editorial, Verónica Olavarría, MD, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, also suggested the trial should be interpreted cautiously because there was “insufficient evidence for a definitive conclusion.”

But Dr. Kruyt noted that even though the TRUTH study was not a randomized trial, the results are in line with those of recent randomized trials such as INTERACT4.

He added that the ENCHANTED trial also showed no benefit of intensive BP management immediately after thrombolysis in mild to moderate stroke and even suggested harm in severe stroke. And other trials (OPTIMAL-BP and ENCHANTED2/MT) have shown worse outcomes with BP lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy. 

“All these studies are showing similar signals throughout the whole timeline in acute ischemic stroke. The results are very much in line with each other. I think this strengthens our findings,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

“With this data, I think the guidelines should be revised, and until randomized data become available showing that reducing blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients in order for them to receive early thrombolysis is beneficial, then we should refrain from doing so,” he added.

INTERACT4 investigator Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, agreed. 

“The TRUTH study gives the same message as INTERACT4. They are completely in line with each other, both suggesting harm with blood pressure lowering in acute ischemic stroke. These two together are going to rattle the cage around blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients,” Dr. Anderson said. 

The TRUTH study was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra. Dr. Kruyt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Olavarría reported receiving a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the RECCA registry and honoraria from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Incorporating eye-tracking biomarkers into pediatric autism assessments may make identifying the condition easier, according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers created an artificial intelligence–based tool to help primary care clinicians and pediatricians spot potential cases of the neurological condition, according to Brandon Keehn, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and an author of the study.

Most primary care clinicians do not receive specialized training in identifying autism, and around a third diagnose the condition with uncertainty, according to Dr. Keehn. The tool helps clinicians by incorporating their diagnosis and self-reported level of certainty with eye-tracking biomarkers. A clinical psychologist also assessed children, either verifying or confuting the earlier results.

The tool produced the same diagnosis as that from a psychologist in 90% of cases. When children were assessed using eye biomarkers alone, the diagnosis was aligned with that of a psychologist 77% of the time.

“This is the first step in demonstrating both that eye-tracking biomarkers are sensitive to autism and whether or not these biomarkers provide extra clinical information for primary care physicians to more accurately diagnose autism,” Dr. Keehn told this news organization.

The study took place between 2019 and 2022 and included 146 children between 14 and 48 months old who were treated at seven primary care practices in Indiana. Dr. Keehn and colleagues asked primary care clinicians to rate their level of certainty in their diagnosis.

During the biomarker test, toddlers watched cartoons while researchers tracked their eye movements. Six biomarkers included in the test were based on previous research linking eye movements to autism, according to Dr. Keehn.

These included whether toddlers looked more at images of people or geometric patterns and the speed and size of pupil dilation when exposed to bright light.

Most toddlers produced a positive result for autism in only one biomarker test. Dr. Keehn said this confirms that children should be tested for a variety of biomarkers because each patient’s condition manifests differently.

Dr. Keehn said his team is still a few steps away from determining how the model would work in a real clinical setting and that they are planning more research with a larger study population.

Alice Kuo, MD, a pediatrician specializing in autism at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), said primary care clinicians should feel comfortable making an autism diagnosis.

“Any tool that helps them to do that can be useful, since wait times for a specialist can take years,” Dr. Kuo, also the director of the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health at UCLA, said.

However, Dr. Kuo said she is concerned about the cases that were falsely identified as positive or negative.

“To be told your kid is autistic when he’s not, or to be told your kid is not when he clinically is, has huge ramifications,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Riley Children’s Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. Dr. Keehn reported payments for workshops on the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Incorporating eye-tracking biomarkers into pediatric autism assessments may make identifying the condition easier, according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers created an artificial intelligence–based tool to help primary care clinicians and pediatricians spot potential cases of the neurological condition, according to Brandon Keehn, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and an author of the study.

Most primary care clinicians do not receive specialized training in identifying autism, and around a third diagnose the condition with uncertainty, according to Dr. Keehn. The tool helps clinicians by incorporating their diagnosis and self-reported level of certainty with eye-tracking biomarkers. A clinical psychologist also assessed children, either verifying or confuting the earlier results.

The tool produced the same diagnosis as that from a psychologist in 90% of cases. When children were assessed using eye biomarkers alone, the diagnosis was aligned with that of a psychologist 77% of the time.

“This is the first step in demonstrating both that eye-tracking biomarkers are sensitive to autism and whether or not these biomarkers provide extra clinical information for primary care physicians to more accurately diagnose autism,” Dr. Keehn told this news organization.

The study took place between 2019 and 2022 and included 146 children between 14 and 48 months old who were treated at seven primary care practices in Indiana. Dr. Keehn and colleagues asked primary care clinicians to rate their level of certainty in their diagnosis.

During the biomarker test, toddlers watched cartoons while researchers tracked their eye movements. Six biomarkers included in the test were based on previous research linking eye movements to autism, according to Dr. Keehn.

These included whether toddlers looked more at images of people or geometric patterns and the speed and size of pupil dilation when exposed to bright light.

Most toddlers produced a positive result for autism in only one biomarker test. Dr. Keehn said this confirms that children should be tested for a variety of biomarkers because each patient’s condition manifests differently.

Dr. Keehn said his team is still a few steps away from determining how the model would work in a real clinical setting and that they are planning more research with a larger study population.

Alice Kuo, MD, a pediatrician specializing in autism at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), said primary care clinicians should feel comfortable making an autism diagnosis.

“Any tool that helps them to do that can be useful, since wait times for a specialist can take years,” Dr. Kuo, also the director of the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health at UCLA, said.

However, Dr. Kuo said she is concerned about the cases that were falsely identified as positive or negative.

“To be told your kid is autistic when he’s not, or to be told your kid is not when he clinically is, has huge ramifications,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Riley Children’s Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. Dr. Keehn reported payments for workshops on the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Incorporating eye-tracking biomarkers into pediatric autism assessments may make identifying the condition easier, according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers created an artificial intelligence–based tool to help primary care clinicians and pediatricians spot potential cases of the neurological condition, according to Brandon Keehn, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and an author of the study.

Most primary care clinicians do not receive specialized training in identifying autism, and around a third diagnose the condition with uncertainty, according to Dr. Keehn. The tool helps clinicians by incorporating their diagnosis and self-reported level of certainty with eye-tracking biomarkers. A clinical psychologist also assessed children, either verifying or confuting the earlier results.

The tool produced the same diagnosis as that from a psychologist in 90% of cases. When children were assessed using eye biomarkers alone, the diagnosis was aligned with that of a psychologist 77% of the time.

“This is the first step in demonstrating both that eye-tracking biomarkers are sensitive to autism and whether or not these biomarkers provide extra clinical information for primary care physicians to more accurately diagnose autism,” Dr. Keehn told this news organization.

The study took place between 2019 and 2022 and included 146 children between 14 and 48 months old who were treated at seven primary care practices in Indiana. Dr. Keehn and colleagues asked primary care clinicians to rate their level of certainty in their diagnosis.

During the biomarker test, toddlers watched cartoons while researchers tracked their eye movements. Six biomarkers included in the test were based on previous research linking eye movements to autism, according to Dr. Keehn.

These included whether toddlers looked more at images of people or geometric patterns and the speed and size of pupil dilation when exposed to bright light.

Most toddlers produced a positive result for autism in only one biomarker test. Dr. Keehn said this confirms that children should be tested for a variety of biomarkers because each patient’s condition manifests differently.

Dr. Keehn said his team is still a few steps away from determining how the model would work in a real clinical setting and that they are planning more research with a larger study population.

Alice Kuo, MD, a pediatrician specializing in autism at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), said primary care clinicians should feel comfortable making an autism diagnosis.

“Any tool that helps them to do that can be useful, since wait times for a specialist can take years,” Dr. Kuo, also the director of the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health at UCLA, said.

However, Dr. Kuo said she is concerned about the cases that were falsely identified as positive or negative.

“To be told your kid is autistic when he’s not, or to be told your kid is not when he clinically is, has huge ramifications,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Riley Children’s Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. Dr. Keehn reported payments for workshops on the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

The postpartum period represents a possibly vulnerable time window for development of new cancers with metastatic potential. Studies in young-onset breast cancer have shown a postpartum diagnosis up to 10 years after childbirth associated with adverse breast cancer survival outcomes.⁴ Women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants have a higher risk of developing breast cancer at a younger age compared to the general population.⁵ A prospective cohort study that included 903 women with germline BRCA1/2 mutations diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age ≤ 45 years investigated whether time since childbirth and time since breast cancer diagnosis were associated with mortality in this population (). A total of 419 women were diagnosed with breast cancer 0-10 years after childbirth (228 at <5 years and 191 at 5-10 years) and 224 women were nulliparous. Breast cancer diagnosis 5 to <10 years postpartum was associated with higher mortality risk vs nulliparous women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.03; P = .03), with a more pronounced effect seen among those with estrogen receptor–negative disease (hazard ratio 3.12; 95% CI 1.22-7.97; P = .02) and BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio 2.03; 95% CI 1.15-3.58; P = .02). This study highlights the importance of appropriate counseling for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, with efforts aimed at optimizing prevention and treatment strategies in young-onset breast cancer.

The mechanisms involved in development of endocrine therapy (ET) resistance are complex and may include changes in hormone signaling, alterations in growth factor signaling pathway components, and appearance of resistant clonal populations.⁶ Prior studies have shown efficacy with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus in combination with various ET backbones. However, the sequencing of these combinations in current clinical practice has shifted in light of significant therapeutic advancements in this space.⁷ A retrospective observational study including 161 patients with advanced hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer treated with everolimus plus ET (exemestane, fulvestrant, tamoxifen) reported outcomes on the real-world use of these regimens after progression on cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor therapy (Sánchez-Bayona et al). At a median follow-up of 15 months, the estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.0 months (95% CI 5.3-7.8 months); PFS was longer among those with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor use lasting >18 months (8.7 months; 95% CI 6.6-11.3 months), patients without visceral disease (8.0 months; 95% CI 5.8-10.5 months), and those who were chemotherapy-naive in the advanced setting (7.2 months; 95% CI 5.9-8.4 months). These data support a role for everolimus plus ET as a treatment option post–CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for selected patient populations, including those whose tumors lack targetable somatic mutations (such as PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations), and may provide meaningful clinical benefit in this setting.

Additional References

1. Rothwell PM, Wilson M, Price JF,  et al. Effect of daily aspirin on risk of cancer metastasis: A study of incident cancers during randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2012;379:1591-601. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60209-8 Source
2. Okada S, Morimoto T, Ogawa H, et al, and the JPAD Trial Investigators. Effect of aspirin on cancer chemoprevention in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: 10-year observational follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1757-1764. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0368 Source
3. Burn J, Sheth H, Elliott F, et al, on behalf of the CAPP2 Investigators. Cancer prevention with aspirin in hereditary colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome), 10-year follow-up and registry-based 20-year data in the CAPP2 study: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1855-1863. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30366-4 Source
4. Shao C, Yu Z, Xiao J, et al. Prognosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: A meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:746. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07248-8 Source
5. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402-2416. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7112 Source
6. Hanker AB, Sudhan DR, Arteaga CL. Overcoming endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:496-513. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.009 Source
7. Kornblum N, Zhao F, Manola J, et al. Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant plus everolimus or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor therapy: Results of PrE0102. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1556-1563. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.9331 Source

The postpartum period represents a possibly vulnerable time window for development of new cancers with metastatic potential. Studies in young-onset breast cancer have shown a postpartum diagnosis up to 10 years after childbirth associated with adverse breast cancer survival outcomes.⁴ Women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants have a higher risk of developing breast cancer at a younger age compared to the general population.⁵ A prospective cohort study that included 903 women with germline BRCA1/2 mutations diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age ≤ 45 years investigated whether time since childbirth and time since breast cancer diagnosis were associated with mortality in this population (). A total of 419 women were diagnosed with breast cancer 0-10 years after childbirth (228 at <5 years and 191 at 5-10 years) and 224 women were nulliparous. Breast cancer diagnosis 5 to <10 years postpartum was associated with higher mortality risk vs nulliparous women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.03; P = .03), with a more pronounced effect seen among those with estrogen receptor–negative disease (hazard ratio 3.12; 95% CI 1.22-7.97; P = .02) and BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio 2.03; 95% CI 1.15-3.58; P = .02). This study highlights the importance of appropriate counseling for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, with efforts aimed at optimizing prevention and treatment strategies in young-onset breast cancer.

The mechanisms involved in development of endocrine therapy (ET) resistance are complex and may include changes in hormone signaling, alterations in growth factor signaling pathway components, and appearance of resistant clonal populations.⁶ Prior studies have shown efficacy with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus in combination with various ET backbones. However, the sequencing of these combinations in current clinical practice has shifted in light of significant therapeutic advancements in this space.⁷ A retrospective observational study including 161 patients with advanced hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer treated with everolimus plus ET (exemestane, fulvestrant, tamoxifen) reported outcomes on the real-world use of these regimens after progression on cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor therapy (Sánchez-Bayona et al). At a median follow-up of 15 months, the estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.0 months (95% CI 5.3-7.8 months); PFS was longer among those with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor use lasting >18 months (8.7 months; 95% CI 6.6-11.3 months), patients without visceral disease (8.0 months; 95% CI 5.8-10.5 months), and those who were chemotherapy-naive in the advanced setting (7.2 months; 95% CI 5.9-8.4 months). These data support a role for everolimus plus ET as a treatment option post–CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for selected patient populations, including those whose tumors lack targetable somatic mutations (such as PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations), and may provide meaningful clinical benefit in this setting.

Additional References

1. Rothwell PM, Wilson M, Price JF,  et al. Effect of daily aspirin on risk of cancer metastasis: A study of incident cancers during randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2012;379:1591-601. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60209-8 Source
2. Okada S, Morimoto T, Ogawa H, et al, and the JPAD Trial Investigators. Effect of aspirin on cancer chemoprevention in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: 10-year observational follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1757-1764. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0368 Source
3. Burn J, Sheth H, Elliott F, et al, on behalf of the CAPP2 Investigators. Cancer prevention with aspirin in hereditary colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome), 10-year follow-up and registry-based 20-year data in the CAPP2 study: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1855-1863. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30366-4 Source
4. Shao C, Yu Z, Xiao J, et al. Prognosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: A meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:746. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07248-8 Source
5. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402-2416. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7112 Source
6. Hanker AB, Sudhan DR, Arteaga CL. Overcoming endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:496-513. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.009 Source
7. Kornblum N, Zhao F, Manola J, et al. Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant plus everolimus or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor therapy: Results of PrE0102. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1556-1563. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.9331 Source

The postpartum period represents a possibly vulnerable time window for development of new cancers with metastatic potential. Studies in young-onset breast cancer have shown a postpartum diagnosis up to 10 years after childbirth associated with adverse breast cancer survival outcomes.⁴ Women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants have a higher risk of developing breast cancer at a younger age compared to the general population.⁵ A prospective cohort study that included 903 women with germline BRCA1/2 mutations diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age ≤ 45 years investigated whether time since childbirth and time since breast cancer diagnosis were associated with mortality in this population (). A total of 419 women were diagnosed with breast cancer 0-10 years after childbirth (228 at <5 years and 191 at 5-10 years) and 224 women were nulliparous. Breast cancer diagnosis 5 to <10 years postpartum was associated with higher mortality risk vs nulliparous women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.03; P = .03), with a more pronounced effect seen among those with estrogen receptor–negative disease (hazard ratio 3.12; 95% CI 1.22-7.97; P = .02) and BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio 2.03; 95% CI 1.15-3.58; P = .02). This study highlights the importance of appropriate counseling for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, with efforts aimed at optimizing prevention and treatment strategies in young-onset breast cancer.

The mechanisms involved in development of endocrine therapy (ET) resistance are complex and may include changes in hormone signaling, alterations in growth factor signaling pathway components, and appearance of resistant clonal populations.⁶ Prior studies have shown efficacy with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus in combination with various ET backbones. However, the sequencing of these combinations in current clinical practice has shifted in light of significant therapeutic advancements in this space.⁷ A retrospective observational study including 161 patients with advanced hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor–2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer treated with everolimus plus ET (exemestane, fulvestrant, tamoxifen) reported outcomes on the real-world use of these regimens after progression on cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor therapy (Sánchez-Bayona et al). At a median follow-up of 15 months, the estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.0 months (95% CI 5.3-7.8 months); PFS was longer among those with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor use lasting >18 months (8.7 months; 95% CI 6.6-11.3 months), patients without visceral disease (8.0 months; 95% CI 5.8-10.5 months), and those who were chemotherapy-naive in the advanced setting (7.2 months; 95% CI 5.9-8.4 months). These data support a role for everolimus plus ET as a treatment option post–CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for selected patient populations, including those whose tumors lack targetable somatic mutations (such as PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations), and may provide meaningful clinical benefit in this setting.

Additional References

1. Rothwell PM, Wilson M, Price JF,  et al. Effect of daily aspirin on risk of cancer metastasis: A study of incident cancers during randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2012;379:1591-601. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60209-8 Source
2. Okada S, Morimoto T, Ogawa H, et al, and the JPAD Trial Investigators. Effect of aspirin on cancer chemoprevention in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: 10-year observational follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1757-1764. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0368 Source
3. Burn J, Sheth H, Elliott F, et al, on behalf of the CAPP2 Investigators. Cancer prevention with aspirin in hereditary colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome), 10-year follow-up and registry-based 20-year data in the CAPP2 study: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1855-1863. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30366-4 Source
4. Shao C, Yu Z, Xiao J, et al. Prognosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: A meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:746. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07248-8 Source
5. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402-2416. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7112 Source
6. Hanker AB, Sudhan DR, Arteaga CL. Overcoming endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:496-513. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.009 Source
7. Kornblum N, Zhao F, Manola J, et al. Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant plus everolimus or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor therapy: Results of PrE0102. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1556-1563. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.9331 Source

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.