User login
‘Reassuring’ data on COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population. 
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population.
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population.
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most breast cancer screening centers not following guidelines
, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.
They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.
This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.
The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.
“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.
“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.
“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.
The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.
The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.
The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.
One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.
“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.
“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.
Details of the analysis
The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.
Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.
A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.
The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.
They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.
This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.
The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.
“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.
“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.
“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.
The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.
The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.
The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.
One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.
“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.
“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.
Details of the analysis
The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.
Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.
A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.
The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.
They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.
This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.
The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.
“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.
“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.
“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.
The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.
The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.
The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.
One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.
“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.
“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.
Details of the analysis
The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.
Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.
A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.
The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When to not go with your gut: Modern approaches to abdominal wall pain
Abdominal pain is a commonly seen presenting concern in gastroenterology clinics. Establishing a diagnosis effectively and efficiently can be challenging given the broad differential. Abdominal wall pain is an often-overlooked diagnosis but accounts for up to 30% of cases of chronic abdominal pain1 and up to 10% of patients with chronic idiopathic abdominal pain seen in gastroenterology practices.2 Trigger point injection in the office can be both diagnostic and therapeutic.
The prevalence of chronic abdominal wall pain is highest in the fifth and sixth decades, and it is four times more likely to occur in women than in men. Common comorbid conditions include obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and fibromyalgia.3 Abdominal wall pain is often sharp or burning due to somatic innervation of the abdominal wall supplied by the anterior branches of thoracic intercostal nerves (T7 to T11). Abdominal wall pain may originate from entrapment of these nerves.2 Potential causes of entrapment include disruption of insulating fat, localized edema and distension, and scar tissue or fibrosis from prior surgical procedures.3 Symptoms are typically exacerbated with any actions or activities that engage the abdominal wall such as twisting or turning, and pain often improves with rest.
The classic physical exam finding for abdominal wall pain is a positive Carnett sign. This is determined via palpation of the point of maximal tenderness. First, this is done with a single finger while the patient’s abdominal wall is relaxed. The same point is then palpated again while the patient engages their abdominal muscles, most commonly while the patient to performs a “sit up” or lifts their legs off the exam table. Exacerbation of pain with these maneuvers indicates a positive test and suggests the abdominal wall as the underlying etiology.
While performing the maneuver for determining Carnett sign is a simple test in the traditional office visit, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a burgeoning proportion of telehealth visits, limiting the physician’s ability to perform a direct physical exam. Fortunately, the maneuvers required when testing for Carnett sign are simple enough that a clinician can guide a patient step-by-step on how to perform the test. Ideally, if a family member or friend is available to serve as the clinician’s hands, the test can be performed with ease while directly visualizing proper technique. Sample videos of how the test is performed are readily available on the Internet for patients to view (the authors suggest screening the video yourself before providing a link to patients). The sensitivity and specificity of Carnett sign are very high (>70%) and even better when there is no apparent hernia.1
Management
Trigger point injections with local anesthetic can be both diagnostic and therapeutic in patients with abdominal wall pain. An immediate reduction of pain by at least 50% with injection at the site of maximal tenderness strongly supports the diagnosis of abdominal wall pain.1 Patients should first be thoroughly counseled on potential side effects of local corticosteroid injection to include risk of infection, bleeding, pain, skin hypopigmentation, or thinning and fat atrophy. Repeat injections are rarely needed, and any additional injection should be performed after at least 3 months. Additional adjunct therapies include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, topical therapies such as lidocaine, and neuroleptic agents such as gabapentin.4 One previously described trigger point injection technique, involves a mix of triamcinolone and lidocaine injected at the point of maximal tenderness.5 This technique is easy to perform in clinic and has minimal risks.
Conclusion
Abdominal wall pain is a common, yet often-overlooked, condition that can be diagnosed with a good clinical history and physical exam. A simple in-office trigger point injection can confirm the diagnosis and offer durable relief for most patients. A shift to virtual medicine does not need to a barrier to diagnosis, particularly in the attentive patient.
Dr. Park is a fellow in the gastroenterology service in the Department of Internal Medicine at Naval Medical Center San Diego and an assistant professor in the department of medicine of the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Singla is a gastroenterologist at Capital Digestive Care in Silver Spring, Md., and an associate professor in the department of medicine at the Uniformed Services University. The authors have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Glissen Brown JR et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(10):828-35.
2. Srinivasan R, Greenbaum DS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(4):824-30.
3. Kambox AK et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(1):139-44.
4. Scheltinga MR, Roumen RM. Hernia. 2018;22(3):507-16.
5. Singla M, Laczek JT. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 May;115(5):645-7.
Abdominal pain is a commonly seen presenting concern in gastroenterology clinics. Establishing a diagnosis effectively and efficiently can be challenging given the broad differential. Abdominal wall pain is an often-overlooked diagnosis but accounts for up to 30% of cases of chronic abdominal pain1 and up to 10% of patients with chronic idiopathic abdominal pain seen in gastroenterology practices.2 Trigger point injection in the office can be both diagnostic and therapeutic.
The prevalence of chronic abdominal wall pain is highest in the fifth and sixth decades, and it is four times more likely to occur in women than in men. Common comorbid conditions include obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and fibromyalgia.3 Abdominal wall pain is often sharp or burning due to somatic innervation of the abdominal wall supplied by the anterior branches of thoracic intercostal nerves (T7 to T11). Abdominal wall pain may originate from entrapment of these nerves.2 Potential causes of entrapment include disruption of insulating fat, localized edema and distension, and scar tissue or fibrosis from prior surgical procedures.3 Symptoms are typically exacerbated with any actions or activities that engage the abdominal wall such as twisting or turning, and pain often improves with rest.
The classic physical exam finding for abdominal wall pain is a positive Carnett sign. This is determined via palpation of the point of maximal tenderness. First, this is done with a single finger while the patient’s abdominal wall is relaxed. The same point is then palpated again while the patient engages their abdominal muscles, most commonly while the patient to performs a “sit up” or lifts their legs off the exam table. Exacerbation of pain with these maneuvers indicates a positive test and suggests the abdominal wall as the underlying etiology.
While performing the maneuver for determining Carnett sign is a simple test in the traditional office visit, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a burgeoning proportion of telehealth visits, limiting the physician’s ability to perform a direct physical exam. Fortunately, the maneuvers required when testing for Carnett sign are simple enough that a clinician can guide a patient step-by-step on how to perform the test. Ideally, if a family member or friend is available to serve as the clinician’s hands, the test can be performed with ease while directly visualizing proper technique. Sample videos of how the test is performed are readily available on the Internet for patients to view (the authors suggest screening the video yourself before providing a link to patients). The sensitivity and specificity of Carnett sign are very high (>70%) and even better when there is no apparent hernia.1
Management
Trigger point injections with local anesthetic can be both diagnostic and therapeutic in patients with abdominal wall pain. An immediate reduction of pain by at least 50% with injection at the site of maximal tenderness strongly supports the diagnosis of abdominal wall pain.1 Patients should first be thoroughly counseled on potential side effects of local corticosteroid injection to include risk of infection, bleeding, pain, skin hypopigmentation, or thinning and fat atrophy. Repeat injections are rarely needed, and any additional injection should be performed after at least 3 months. Additional adjunct therapies include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, topical therapies such as lidocaine, and neuroleptic agents such as gabapentin.4 One previously described trigger point injection technique, involves a mix of triamcinolone and lidocaine injected at the point of maximal tenderness.5 This technique is easy to perform in clinic and has minimal risks.
Conclusion
Abdominal wall pain is a common, yet often-overlooked, condition that can be diagnosed with a good clinical history and physical exam. A simple in-office trigger point injection can confirm the diagnosis and offer durable relief for most patients. A shift to virtual medicine does not need to a barrier to diagnosis, particularly in the attentive patient.
Dr. Park is a fellow in the gastroenterology service in the Department of Internal Medicine at Naval Medical Center San Diego and an assistant professor in the department of medicine of the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Singla is a gastroenterologist at Capital Digestive Care in Silver Spring, Md., and an associate professor in the department of medicine at the Uniformed Services University. The authors have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Glissen Brown JR et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(10):828-35.
2. Srinivasan R, Greenbaum DS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(4):824-30.
3. Kambox AK et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(1):139-44.
4. Scheltinga MR, Roumen RM. Hernia. 2018;22(3):507-16.
5. Singla M, Laczek JT. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 May;115(5):645-7.
Abdominal pain is a commonly seen presenting concern in gastroenterology clinics. Establishing a diagnosis effectively and efficiently can be challenging given the broad differential. Abdominal wall pain is an often-overlooked diagnosis but accounts for up to 30% of cases of chronic abdominal pain1 and up to 10% of patients with chronic idiopathic abdominal pain seen in gastroenterology practices.2 Trigger point injection in the office can be both diagnostic and therapeutic.
The prevalence of chronic abdominal wall pain is highest in the fifth and sixth decades, and it is four times more likely to occur in women than in men. Common comorbid conditions include obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and fibromyalgia.3 Abdominal wall pain is often sharp or burning due to somatic innervation of the abdominal wall supplied by the anterior branches of thoracic intercostal nerves (T7 to T11). Abdominal wall pain may originate from entrapment of these nerves.2 Potential causes of entrapment include disruption of insulating fat, localized edema and distension, and scar tissue or fibrosis from prior surgical procedures.3 Symptoms are typically exacerbated with any actions or activities that engage the abdominal wall such as twisting or turning, and pain often improves with rest.
The classic physical exam finding for abdominal wall pain is a positive Carnett sign. This is determined via palpation of the point of maximal tenderness. First, this is done with a single finger while the patient’s abdominal wall is relaxed. The same point is then palpated again while the patient engages their abdominal muscles, most commonly while the patient to performs a “sit up” or lifts their legs off the exam table. Exacerbation of pain with these maneuvers indicates a positive test and suggests the abdominal wall as the underlying etiology.
While performing the maneuver for determining Carnett sign is a simple test in the traditional office visit, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a burgeoning proportion of telehealth visits, limiting the physician’s ability to perform a direct physical exam. Fortunately, the maneuvers required when testing for Carnett sign are simple enough that a clinician can guide a patient step-by-step on how to perform the test. Ideally, if a family member or friend is available to serve as the clinician’s hands, the test can be performed with ease while directly visualizing proper technique. Sample videos of how the test is performed are readily available on the Internet for patients to view (the authors suggest screening the video yourself before providing a link to patients). The sensitivity and specificity of Carnett sign are very high (>70%) and even better when there is no apparent hernia.1
Management
Trigger point injections with local anesthetic can be both diagnostic and therapeutic in patients with abdominal wall pain. An immediate reduction of pain by at least 50% with injection at the site of maximal tenderness strongly supports the diagnosis of abdominal wall pain.1 Patients should first be thoroughly counseled on potential side effects of local corticosteroid injection to include risk of infection, bleeding, pain, skin hypopigmentation, or thinning and fat atrophy. Repeat injections are rarely needed, and any additional injection should be performed after at least 3 months. Additional adjunct therapies include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, topical therapies such as lidocaine, and neuroleptic agents such as gabapentin.4 One previously described trigger point injection technique, involves a mix of triamcinolone and lidocaine injected at the point of maximal tenderness.5 This technique is easy to perform in clinic and has minimal risks.
Conclusion
Abdominal wall pain is a common, yet often-overlooked, condition that can be diagnosed with a good clinical history and physical exam. A simple in-office trigger point injection can confirm the diagnosis and offer durable relief for most patients. A shift to virtual medicine does not need to a barrier to diagnosis, particularly in the attentive patient.
Dr. Park is a fellow in the gastroenterology service in the Department of Internal Medicine at Naval Medical Center San Diego and an assistant professor in the department of medicine of the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Singla is a gastroenterologist at Capital Digestive Care in Silver Spring, Md., and an associate professor in the department of medicine at the Uniformed Services University. The authors have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Glissen Brown JR et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(10):828-35.
2. Srinivasan R, Greenbaum DS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(4):824-30.
3. Kambox AK et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(1):139-44.
4. Scheltinga MR, Roumen RM. Hernia. 2018;22(3):507-16.
5. Singla M, Laczek JT. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 May;115(5):645-7.
Advocating in a pandemic: A fellow’s perspective on AGA Advocacy Day
Gastroenterology fellowship is an exercise in balance. You are learning your way around different parts of the gastrointestinal tract, both cerebrally and anatomically. You are continuously taking care of patients, in the hospital and in the clinic. You attend all kinds of conferences, didactics, and webinars. And though the hours are long, the work is worth seeing a smile from even one patient for whom you have made a tangible difference in health care. Though these moments are priceless, how often they happen is often limited by access to care, health care disparities, and systemic injustice. Fighting for each one of our patients and their health is difficult for even the most seasoned physician. Training during the middle of a pandemic has brought health care disparities to the forefront; delays in colorectal cancer screening and postponements of nonurgent procedures will have downstream impacts. It was with these thoughts in mind that I decided to participate in AGA (American Gastroenterological Association) Advocacy Day in September 2020 as a gastroenterology fellow.
After close to 20 years of in-person Advocacy Days, the AGA decided to take its advocacy efforts to a virtual platform in the fall of 2020. The country remained in the throes of the worst pandemic it had seen in over a century, and social distancing efforts necessitated a different venue than previous years. This year’s online platform was designed to let individuals involved in gastroenterology health care join each other and discuss policies germane to our patients and our profession.
I have to confess that I did not have significant legislative experience, and I signed up for the virtual Advocacy Day with a sense of slight trepidation. Would I be prepared to talk to experts in the field? What did I know about health care policy on the granular level? How could I get across my message cogently and successfully? All I really knew was that I wanted to get engaged with a group of gastroenterologists early on in my career who were not only vociferous advocates for their patients at the bedside, but who were also able to actively support policy changes that would bring about systemic change.
As it turned out, I had nothing to worry about. This advocacy experience was designed for gastroenterology clinical providers to be able to talk intelligently about topics they knew well – research funding, colonoscopy costs, and different levels of therapy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, among others. To provide an overview of public policy issues, the AGA prepared a legislative briefing book that allowed us to take a deep dive into these topics. I remember reviewing the issue briefs in detail, understanding that I did not need to be an expert but that familiarity with the issues would be a key component of having a successful meeting. I also completed an online advocacy training module that gave me insight into how and why I could advocate for my profession as a future gastroenterologist. Based on our congressional district and state, we were divided into groups of congressional advocates who would speak to specific congressional staff members. During our meetings, we had legislative staff available to help us navigate the finer points of public policy. Each member of my group chose a topic that was personally relevant to them. Throughout our sessions, we shared personal stories, dove in and out of virtual meeting rooms, and made sure we were clear in what we were advocating for.
As a second-year gastroenterology fellow working at the National Institutes of Health, I chose to focus on digestive diseases research funding for the research community. I talked to the congressional staff members about a patient I had seen earlier that year. He was a man in his mid-30s who was diagnosed with hepatitis C more than 10 years ago and was told, at the time of his diagnosis, that there were no good treatments for him. He had resigned himself to that fact until I saw him in my office and spoke to him about the remarkable advances in liver disease treatment that were made over the past few years. I talked to him about how Hepatitis C was a disease that could now be cured – the relief on his face was clear and only reaffirmed in me the understanding that research in digestive diseases has improved the health of our nation’s population through sustained research efforts in gastrointestinal cancers and other life-altering illnesses.
So what did I take away from this adventure in advocacy? Our role as gastroenterologists can go beyond treating one patient in one office in one hospital system at a time. We can effect change by addressing policies that we know are hurting our patients and their health. The learning curve is made much easier under the excellence of the AGA advocacy staff, who takes the time to gather resources and educate us on the specifics of relevant legislative policies, as well as of the congressional members with whom we are speaking. Our advice was sought after because, after years of training, we were the experts in this field. I was proud to have joined this grassroots network of engaged members to speak to our lawmakers. I can only imagine, in the years to come, how wonderful it would be to do this in person in our nation’s capital.
Dr. Asif is a gastroenterology fellow working with the University of Maryland and National Institutes of Health. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Gastroenterology fellowship is an exercise in balance. You are learning your way around different parts of the gastrointestinal tract, both cerebrally and anatomically. You are continuously taking care of patients, in the hospital and in the clinic. You attend all kinds of conferences, didactics, and webinars. And though the hours are long, the work is worth seeing a smile from even one patient for whom you have made a tangible difference in health care. Though these moments are priceless, how often they happen is often limited by access to care, health care disparities, and systemic injustice. Fighting for each one of our patients and their health is difficult for even the most seasoned physician. Training during the middle of a pandemic has brought health care disparities to the forefront; delays in colorectal cancer screening and postponements of nonurgent procedures will have downstream impacts. It was with these thoughts in mind that I decided to participate in AGA (American Gastroenterological Association) Advocacy Day in September 2020 as a gastroenterology fellow.
After close to 20 years of in-person Advocacy Days, the AGA decided to take its advocacy efforts to a virtual platform in the fall of 2020. The country remained in the throes of the worst pandemic it had seen in over a century, and social distancing efforts necessitated a different venue than previous years. This year’s online platform was designed to let individuals involved in gastroenterology health care join each other and discuss policies germane to our patients and our profession.
I have to confess that I did not have significant legislative experience, and I signed up for the virtual Advocacy Day with a sense of slight trepidation. Would I be prepared to talk to experts in the field? What did I know about health care policy on the granular level? How could I get across my message cogently and successfully? All I really knew was that I wanted to get engaged with a group of gastroenterologists early on in my career who were not only vociferous advocates for their patients at the bedside, but who were also able to actively support policy changes that would bring about systemic change.
As it turned out, I had nothing to worry about. This advocacy experience was designed for gastroenterology clinical providers to be able to talk intelligently about topics they knew well – research funding, colonoscopy costs, and different levels of therapy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, among others. To provide an overview of public policy issues, the AGA prepared a legislative briefing book that allowed us to take a deep dive into these topics. I remember reviewing the issue briefs in detail, understanding that I did not need to be an expert but that familiarity with the issues would be a key component of having a successful meeting. I also completed an online advocacy training module that gave me insight into how and why I could advocate for my profession as a future gastroenterologist. Based on our congressional district and state, we were divided into groups of congressional advocates who would speak to specific congressional staff members. During our meetings, we had legislative staff available to help us navigate the finer points of public policy. Each member of my group chose a topic that was personally relevant to them. Throughout our sessions, we shared personal stories, dove in and out of virtual meeting rooms, and made sure we were clear in what we were advocating for.
As a second-year gastroenterology fellow working at the National Institutes of Health, I chose to focus on digestive diseases research funding for the research community. I talked to the congressional staff members about a patient I had seen earlier that year. He was a man in his mid-30s who was diagnosed with hepatitis C more than 10 years ago and was told, at the time of his diagnosis, that there were no good treatments for him. He had resigned himself to that fact until I saw him in my office and spoke to him about the remarkable advances in liver disease treatment that were made over the past few years. I talked to him about how Hepatitis C was a disease that could now be cured – the relief on his face was clear and only reaffirmed in me the understanding that research in digestive diseases has improved the health of our nation’s population through sustained research efforts in gastrointestinal cancers and other life-altering illnesses.
So what did I take away from this adventure in advocacy? Our role as gastroenterologists can go beyond treating one patient in one office in one hospital system at a time. We can effect change by addressing policies that we know are hurting our patients and their health. The learning curve is made much easier under the excellence of the AGA advocacy staff, who takes the time to gather resources and educate us on the specifics of relevant legislative policies, as well as of the congressional members with whom we are speaking. Our advice was sought after because, after years of training, we were the experts in this field. I was proud to have joined this grassroots network of engaged members to speak to our lawmakers. I can only imagine, in the years to come, how wonderful it would be to do this in person in our nation’s capital.
Dr. Asif is a gastroenterology fellow working with the University of Maryland and National Institutes of Health. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Gastroenterology fellowship is an exercise in balance. You are learning your way around different parts of the gastrointestinal tract, both cerebrally and anatomically. You are continuously taking care of patients, in the hospital and in the clinic. You attend all kinds of conferences, didactics, and webinars. And though the hours are long, the work is worth seeing a smile from even one patient for whom you have made a tangible difference in health care. Though these moments are priceless, how often they happen is often limited by access to care, health care disparities, and systemic injustice. Fighting for each one of our patients and their health is difficult for even the most seasoned physician. Training during the middle of a pandemic has brought health care disparities to the forefront; delays in colorectal cancer screening and postponements of nonurgent procedures will have downstream impacts. It was with these thoughts in mind that I decided to participate in AGA (American Gastroenterological Association) Advocacy Day in September 2020 as a gastroenterology fellow.
After close to 20 years of in-person Advocacy Days, the AGA decided to take its advocacy efforts to a virtual platform in the fall of 2020. The country remained in the throes of the worst pandemic it had seen in over a century, and social distancing efforts necessitated a different venue than previous years. This year’s online platform was designed to let individuals involved in gastroenterology health care join each other and discuss policies germane to our patients and our profession.
I have to confess that I did not have significant legislative experience, and I signed up for the virtual Advocacy Day with a sense of slight trepidation. Would I be prepared to talk to experts in the field? What did I know about health care policy on the granular level? How could I get across my message cogently and successfully? All I really knew was that I wanted to get engaged with a group of gastroenterologists early on in my career who were not only vociferous advocates for their patients at the bedside, but who were also able to actively support policy changes that would bring about systemic change.
As it turned out, I had nothing to worry about. This advocacy experience was designed for gastroenterology clinical providers to be able to talk intelligently about topics they knew well – research funding, colonoscopy costs, and different levels of therapy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, among others. To provide an overview of public policy issues, the AGA prepared a legislative briefing book that allowed us to take a deep dive into these topics. I remember reviewing the issue briefs in detail, understanding that I did not need to be an expert but that familiarity with the issues would be a key component of having a successful meeting. I also completed an online advocacy training module that gave me insight into how and why I could advocate for my profession as a future gastroenterologist. Based on our congressional district and state, we were divided into groups of congressional advocates who would speak to specific congressional staff members. During our meetings, we had legislative staff available to help us navigate the finer points of public policy. Each member of my group chose a topic that was personally relevant to them. Throughout our sessions, we shared personal stories, dove in and out of virtual meeting rooms, and made sure we were clear in what we were advocating for.
As a second-year gastroenterology fellow working at the National Institutes of Health, I chose to focus on digestive diseases research funding for the research community. I talked to the congressional staff members about a patient I had seen earlier that year. He was a man in his mid-30s who was diagnosed with hepatitis C more than 10 years ago and was told, at the time of his diagnosis, that there were no good treatments for him. He had resigned himself to that fact until I saw him in my office and spoke to him about the remarkable advances in liver disease treatment that were made over the past few years. I talked to him about how Hepatitis C was a disease that could now be cured – the relief on his face was clear and only reaffirmed in me the understanding that research in digestive diseases has improved the health of our nation’s population through sustained research efforts in gastrointestinal cancers and other life-altering illnesses.
So what did I take away from this adventure in advocacy? Our role as gastroenterologists can go beyond treating one patient in one office in one hospital system at a time. We can effect change by addressing policies that we know are hurting our patients and their health. The learning curve is made much easier under the excellence of the AGA advocacy staff, who takes the time to gather resources and educate us on the specifics of relevant legislative policies, as well as of the congressional members with whom we are speaking. Our advice was sought after because, after years of training, we were the experts in this field. I was proud to have joined this grassroots network of engaged members to speak to our lawmakers. I can only imagine, in the years to come, how wonderful it would be to do this in person in our nation’s capital.
Dr. Asif is a gastroenterology fellow working with the University of Maryland and National Institutes of Health. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Financial toxicity linked to survival time in head and neck cancer
Worries about out-of-pocket costs of treatment they are receiving – so-called “financial toxicity” – may harm outcomes for patients with cancer, new research suggests.
The study found that patients with head and neck cancer who were worried about their finances had approximately double the risk of dying when compared to patients without such worries.
The findings were published in Oral Oncology.
“This is the first time that financial worry was shown to impact survival,” senior author Anurag Singh, MD, of Roswell Park Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., told this news organization.
“The association we found was very strong and very concerning,” he said. “If you are worried about your finances, your risk of dying is roughly double.”
Dr. Singh emphasized that the risk of dying was not related to missing treatment due to financial concerns. Although it has been reported that as many as a quarter of all patients with cancer choose not to fill a prescription because of cost, this was not the case for the current study population.
“Our patients all finished on time and did not skip treatments,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh suggests these results could be extrapolated to the larger cancer population, as many cancer types require long treatments, expensive targeted agents, and surgery. “It is possible, and we are studying it in lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients,” he said.
The problem of financial toxicity has been widely reported. However, few solutions have emerged, especially those that can be implemented immediately. Dr. Singh said his institution has begun a referral program and plans to publish on this soon.
“We have been utilizing financial counselors for our head and neck patients for more than 3 years,” he said. “This has stabilized the amount of financial worry during the course of treatment – meaning it didn’t get worse while the patient was undergoing treatment.”
Financial worries linked to worse outcomes
In the article, Dr. Singh and colleagues explained that they studied patients with head and neck cancer because medical and out-of-pocket expenses are higher for this type of tumor compared with other malignancies.
Previous studies have shown that patients with head and neck cancer are at risk for worsening quality of life due to financial toxicity, and one study showed that more than two out of three such patients relied on cost-coping strategies, such as selling personal assets or taking credit card loans (J Onc Pract. 2017;13:e310-8).
For their study, Dr. Singh and colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 284 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center with definitive or postoperative radiation therapy between 2013 and 2017. The median age of patients was 61 years, and more than three-quarters were men (77.5%).
Of this group, 204 patients (71.8%) received definitive radiation, and 80 patients (28.2%) were treated with adjuvant radiation. Chemotherapy was used for 237 patients (83.5%), usually cisplatin. The median follow-up was 39.9 months.
At baseline, 41 (14.4%) patients reported a high level of financial difficulties, and the rate of relapse was higher among these patients.
In the group of patients with financial difficulties, 14 of 41 (33%) patients had a relapse (7 distant, 7 local). Subsequent treatments included none (n = 6, 42.9%), systemic therapy (n = 5, 35.7%), and surgery (n = 3, 21.4%). Three patients (21.4%) received immunotherapy at some point during treatment.
Among patients who reported low financial difficulty at baseline, 50 of 243 patients (20.6%) had a relapse (34 distant, 16 local). Subsequent treatments included none (n = 15, 30%), systemic therapy (n = 25, 50%), and surgery (n = 10, 20%). Fourteen patients (28%) received immunotherapy at some point during treatment.
The researchers noted there was no significant association between financial difficulties and receipt of additional treatments (P = .36) or immunotherapy (P = .62).
However, on multivariable analysis, they found a significant association between financial difficulties and worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .03) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 2.28; P = .003).
When the team narrowed their focus to 66 patients matched with well-balanced baseline characteristics, the significant association was even more pronounced. A high level of financial difficulties remained associated with worse overall survival (HR, 2.72; P = .04) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 3.75; P = .02).
The team noted that an earlier study (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:980-6) found a higher risk of death among patients with cancer who filed for bankruptcy than among those who hadn’t. The adjusted mortality among cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy was nearly double (HR, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.96). Colorectal, prostate, and thyroid cancers had the highest hazard ratios.
The hazard ratios for overall survival in the overall and matched-pair populations in the current study (1.75 and 2.72) are consistent with the overall cohort hazard ratio of 1.79 reported in the 2016 study, according to Dr. Singh and colleagues.
“If confirmed in other cohorts, this would suggest that relatively mild financial toxicity at baseline may have the same impact on mortality as an extreme consequence like post-therapy bankruptcy,” Dr. Singh and colleagues wrote.
Their study was supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. The authors declared no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Worries about out-of-pocket costs of treatment they are receiving – so-called “financial toxicity” – may harm outcomes for patients with cancer, new research suggests.
The study found that patients with head and neck cancer who were worried about their finances had approximately double the risk of dying when compared to patients without such worries.
The findings were published in Oral Oncology.
“This is the first time that financial worry was shown to impact survival,” senior author Anurag Singh, MD, of Roswell Park Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., told this news organization.
“The association we found was very strong and very concerning,” he said. “If you are worried about your finances, your risk of dying is roughly double.”
Dr. Singh emphasized that the risk of dying was not related to missing treatment due to financial concerns. Although it has been reported that as many as a quarter of all patients with cancer choose not to fill a prescription because of cost, this was not the case for the current study population.
“Our patients all finished on time and did not skip treatments,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh suggests these results could be extrapolated to the larger cancer population, as many cancer types require long treatments, expensive targeted agents, and surgery. “It is possible, and we are studying it in lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients,” he said.
The problem of financial toxicity has been widely reported. However, few solutions have emerged, especially those that can be implemented immediately. Dr. Singh said his institution has begun a referral program and plans to publish on this soon.
“We have been utilizing financial counselors for our head and neck patients for more than 3 years,” he said. “This has stabilized the amount of financial worry during the course of treatment – meaning it didn’t get worse while the patient was undergoing treatment.”
Financial worries linked to worse outcomes
In the article, Dr. Singh and colleagues explained that they studied patients with head and neck cancer because medical and out-of-pocket expenses are higher for this type of tumor compared with other malignancies.
Previous studies have shown that patients with head and neck cancer are at risk for worsening quality of life due to financial toxicity, and one study showed that more than two out of three such patients relied on cost-coping strategies, such as selling personal assets or taking credit card loans (J Onc Pract. 2017;13:e310-8).
For their study, Dr. Singh and colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 284 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center with definitive or postoperative radiation therapy between 2013 and 2017. The median age of patients was 61 years, and more than three-quarters were men (77.5%).
Of this group, 204 patients (71.8%) received definitive radiation, and 80 patients (28.2%) were treated with adjuvant radiation. Chemotherapy was used for 237 patients (83.5%), usually cisplatin. The median follow-up was 39.9 months.
At baseline, 41 (14.4%) patients reported a high level of financial difficulties, and the rate of relapse was higher among these patients.
In the group of patients with financial difficulties, 14 of 41 (33%) patients had a relapse (7 distant, 7 local). Subsequent treatments included none (n = 6, 42.9%), systemic therapy (n = 5, 35.7%), and surgery (n = 3, 21.4%). Three patients (21.4%) received immunotherapy at some point during treatment.
Among patients who reported low financial difficulty at baseline, 50 of 243 patients (20.6%) had a relapse (34 distant, 16 local). Subsequent treatments included none (n = 15, 30%), systemic therapy (n = 25, 50%), and surgery (n = 10, 20%). Fourteen patients (28%) received immunotherapy at some point during treatment.
The researchers noted there was no significant association between financial difficulties and receipt of additional treatments (P = .36) or immunotherapy (P = .62).
However, on multivariable analysis, they found a significant association between financial difficulties and worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .03) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 2.28; P = .003).
When the team narrowed their focus to 66 patients matched with well-balanced baseline characteristics, the significant association was even more pronounced. A high level of financial difficulties remained associated with worse overall survival (HR, 2.72; P = .04) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 3.75; P = .02).
The team noted that an earlier study (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:980-6) found a higher risk of death among patients with cancer who filed for bankruptcy than among those who hadn’t. The adjusted mortality among cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy was nearly double (HR, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.96). Colorectal, prostate, and thyroid cancers had the highest hazard ratios.
The hazard ratios for overall survival in the overall and matched-pair populations in the current study (1.75 and 2.72) are consistent with the overall cohort hazard ratio of 1.79 reported in the 2016 study, according to Dr. Singh and colleagues.
“If confirmed in other cohorts, this would suggest that relatively mild financial toxicity at baseline may have the same impact on mortality as an extreme consequence like post-therapy bankruptcy,” Dr. Singh and colleagues wrote.
Their study was supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. The authors declared no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Worries about out-of-pocket costs of treatment they are receiving – so-called “financial toxicity” – may harm outcomes for patients with cancer, new research suggests.
The study found that patients with head and neck cancer who were worried about their finances had approximately double the risk of dying when compared to patients without such worries.
The findings were published in Oral Oncology.
“This is the first time that financial worry was shown to impact survival,” senior author Anurag Singh, MD, of Roswell Park Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., told this news organization.
“The association we found was very strong and very concerning,” he said. “If you are worried about your finances, your risk of dying is roughly double.”
Dr. Singh emphasized that the risk of dying was not related to missing treatment due to financial concerns. Although it has been reported that as many as a quarter of all patients with cancer choose not to fill a prescription because of cost, this was not the case for the current study population.
“Our patients all finished on time and did not skip treatments,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh suggests these results could be extrapolated to the larger cancer population, as many cancer types require long treatments, expensive targeted agents, and surgery. “It is possible, and we are studying it in lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients,” he said.
The problem of financial toxicity has been widely reported. However, few solutions have emerged, especially those that can be implemented immediately. Dr. Singh said his institution has begun a referral program and plans to publish on this soon.
“We have been utilizing financial counselors for our head and neck patients for more than 3 years,” he said. “This has stabilized the amount of financial worry during the course of treatment – meaning it didn’t get worse while the patient was undergoing treatment.”
Financial worries linked to worse outcomes
In the article, Dr. Singh and colleagues explained that they studied patients with head and neck cancer because medical and out-of-pocket expenses are higher for this type of tumor compared with other malignancies.
Previous studies have shown that patients with head and neck cancer are at risk for worsening quality of life due to financial toxicity, and one study showed that more than two out of three such patients relied on cost-coping strategies, such as selling personal assets or taking credit card loans (J Onc Pract. 2017;13:e310-8).
For their study, Dr. Singh and colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 284 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center with definitive or postoperative radiation therapy between 2013 and 2017. The median age of patients was 61 years, and more than three-quarters were men (77.5%).
Of this group, 204 patients (71.8%) received definitive radiation, and 80 patients (28.2%) were treated with adjuvant radiation. Chemotherapy was used for 237 patients (83.5%), usually cisplatin. The median follow-up was 39.9 months.
At baseline, 41 (14.4%) patients reported a high level of financial difficulties, and the rate of relapse was higher among these patients.
In the group of patients with financial difficulties, 14 of 41 (33%) patients had a relapse (7 distant, 7 local). Subsequent treatments included none (n = 6, 42.9%), systemic therapy (n = 5, 35.7%), and surgery (n = 3, 21.4%). Three patients (21.4%) received immunotherapy at some point during treatment.
Among patients who reported low financial difficulty at baseline, 50 of 243 patients (20.6%) had a relapse (34 distant, 16 local). Subsequent treatments included none (n = 15, 30%), systemic therapy (n = 25, 50%), and surgery (n = 10, 20%). Fourteen patients (28%) received immunotherapy at some point during treatment.
The researchers noted there was no significant association between financial difficulties and receipt of additional treatments (P = .36) or immunotherapy (P = .62).
However, on multivariable analysis, they found a significant association between financial difficulties and worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .03) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 2.28; P = .003).
When the team narrowed their focus to 66 patients matched with well-balanced baseline characteristics, the significant association was even more pronounced. A high level of financial difficulties remained associated with worse overall survival (HR, 2.72; P = .04) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 3.75; P = .02).
The team noted that an earlier study (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:980-6) found a higher risk of death among patients with cancer who filed for bankruptcy than among those who hadn’t. The adjusted mortality among cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy was nearly double (HR, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.96). Colorectal, prostate, and thyroid cancers had the highest hazard ratios.
The hazard ratios for overall survival in the overall and matched-pair populations in the current study (1.75 and 2.72) are consistent with the overall cohort hazard ratio of 1.79 reported in the 2016 study, according to Dr. Singh and colleagues.
“If confirmed in other cohorts, this would suggest that relatively mild financial toxicity at baseline may have the same impact on mortality as an extreme consequence like post-therapy bankruptcy,” Dr. Singh and colleagues wrote.
Their study was supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. The authors declared no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children with increased suicide risk are falling through the cracks
Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.
“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.
Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.
At-risk kids are falling through the cracks
Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.
“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”
In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.
Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.
Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.
The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.
Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.
“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”
Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.
Robust prevention strategies needed
Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.
The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.
“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”
Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.
Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.
It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.
Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.
Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,
Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.
“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.
Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.
At-risk kids are falling through the cracks
Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.
“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”
In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.
Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.
Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.
The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.
Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.
“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”
Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.
Robust prevention strategies needed
Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.
The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.
“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”
Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.
Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.
It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.
Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.
Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,
Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.
“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.
Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.
At-risk kids are falling through the cracks
Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.
“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”
In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.
Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.
Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.
The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.
Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.
“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”
Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.
Robust prevention strategies needed
Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.
The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.
“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”
Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.
Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.
It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.
Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.
Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,
2021 match sets records: Who matched and who didn’t?
A total of 38,106 positions were offered, up 850 spots (2.3%) from 2020. Of those, 35,194 were first-year (PGY-1) positions, which was 928 more than the previous year (2.7%). A record 5,915 programs were part of the Match, 88 more than 2020.
“The application and recruitment cycle was upended as a result of the pandemic, yet the results of the Match continue to demonstrate strong and consistent outcomes for participants,” Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, NRMP president and CEO, said in a new release.
The report comes amid a year of Zoom interview fatigue, canceled testing, and virus fears and work-arounds, which the NMRP has never had to wrestle with since it was established in 1952.
Despite challenges, fill rates increased across the board. Of the 38,106 total positions offered, 36,179 were filled, representing a 2.6% increase over 2020. Of the 35,194 first-year positions available, 33,535 were filled, representing a 2.9% increase.
Those rates drove the percentage of all positions filled to 94.9% (up from 94.6%) and the percentage of PGY-1 positions filled to 94.8% (also up from 94.6%). There were 1,927 unfilled positions, a decline of 71 (3.6%) from 2020.
Primary care results strong
Of the first-year positions offered, 17,649 (49.6%) were in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. That’s an increase of 514 positions (3%) over 2020.
Of first-year positions offered in 2021, 16,860 (95.5%) were filled. U.S. seniors took 11,013 (65.3%) of those slots; that represents a slight decline (0.3%) from 2020. Family medicine saw a gain of 63 U.S. MD seniors who matched, and internal medicine saw a gain of 93 U.S. DO seniors who matched.
Some specialties filled all positions
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled all available positions include dermatology, medicine – emergency medicine, medicine – pediatrics, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology, integrated plastic surgery, and vascular surgery.*
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled more than 90% with U.S. seniors include dermatology (100%), medicine – emergency medicine (93.6%), medicine – pediatrics (93.5%), otolaryngology (93.2%), orthopedic surgery (92.8%), and integrated plastic surgery (90.4%).*
PGY-1 specialties with at least 30 positions that filled less than 50% with U.S. seniors include pathology (41.4 %) and surgery–preliminary (28%).
The number of U.S. citizen international medical graduates who submitted rank-ordered lists was 5,295, an increase of 128 (2.5%) over 2020 and the highest in 6 years; 3,152 of them matched to first-year positions, down two PGY-1 matched applicants over last year.
Full data are available on the NRMP’s website.
Correction, 3/22/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the affected specialties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A total of 38,106 positions were offered, up 850 spots (2.3%) from 2020. Of those, 35,194 were first-year (PGY-1) positions, which was 928 more than the previous year (2.7%). A record 5,915 programs were part of the Match, 88 more than 2020.
“The application and recruitment cycle was upended as a result of the pandemic, yet the results of the Match continue to demonstrate strong and consistent outcomes for participants,” Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, NRMP president and CEO, said in a new release.
The report comes amid a year of Zoom interview fatigue, canceled testing, and virus fears and work-arounds, which the NMRP has never had to wrestle with since it was established in 1952.
Despite challenges, fill rates increased across the board. Of the 38,106 total positions offered, 36,179 were filled, representing a 2.6% increase over 2020. Of the 35,194 first-year positions available, 33,535 were filled, representing a 2.9% increase.
Those rates drove the percentage of all positions filled to 94.9% (up from 94.6%) and the percentage of PGY-1 positions filled to 94.8% (also up from 94.6%). There were 1,927 unfilled positions, a decline of 71 (3.6%) from 2020.
Primary care results strong
Of the first-year positions offered, 17,649 (49.6%) were in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. That’s an increase of 514 positions (3%) over 2020.
Of first-year positions offered in 2021, 16,860 (95.5%) were filled. U.S. seniors took 11,013 (65.3%) of those slots; that represents a slight decline (0.3%) from 2020. Family medicine saw a gain of 63 U.S. MD seniors who matched, and internal medicine saw a gain of 93 U.S. DO seniors who matched.
Some specialties filled all positions
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled all available positions include dermatology, medicine – emergency medicine, medicine – pediatrics, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology, integrated plastic surgery, and vascular surgery.*
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled more than 90% with U.S. seniors include dermatology (100%), medicine – emergency medicine (93.6%), medicine – pediatrics (93.5%), otolaryngology (93.2%), orthopedic surgery (92.8%), and integrated plastic surgery (90.4%).*
PGY-1 specialties with at least 30 positions that filled less than 50% with U.S. seniors include pathology (41.4 %) and surgery–preliminary (28%).
The number of U.S. citizen international medical graduates who submitted rank-ordered lists was 5,295, an increase of 128 (2.5%) over 2020 and the highest in 6 years; 3,152 of them matched to first-year positions, down two PGY-1 matched applicants over last year.
Full data are available on the NRMP’s website.
Correction, 3/22/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the affected specialties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A total of 38,106 positions were offered, up 850 spots (2.3%) from 2020. Of those, 35,194 were first-year (PGY-1) positions, which was 928 more than the previous year (2.7%). A record 5,915 programs were part of the Match, 88 more than 2020.
“The application and recruitment cycle was upended as a result of the pandemic, yet the results of the Match continue to demonstrate strong and consistent outcomes for participants,” Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, NRMP president and CEO, said in a new release.
The report comes amid a year of Zoom interview fatigue, canceled testing, and virus fears and work-arounds, which the NMRP has never had to wrestle with since it was established in 1952.
Despite challenges, fill rates increased across the board. Of the 38,106 total positions offered, 36,179 were filled, representing a 2.6% increase over 2020. Of the 35,194 first-year positions available, 33,535 were filled, representing a 2.9% increase.
Those rates drove the percentage of all positions filled to 94.9% (up from 94.6%) and the percentage of PGY-1 positions filled to 94.8% (also up from 94.6%). There were 1,927 unfilled positions, a decline of 71 (3.6%) from 2020.
Primary care results strong
Of the first-year positions offered, 17,649 (49.6%) were in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. That’s an increase of 514 positions (3%) over 2020.
Of first-year positions offered in 2021, 16,860 (95.5%) were filled. U.S. seniors took 11,013 (65.3%) of those slots; that represents a slight decline (0.3%) from 2020. Family medicine saw a gain of 63 U.S. MD seniors who matched, and internal medicine saw a gain of 93 U.S. DO seniors who matched.
Some specialties filled all positions
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled all available positions include dermatology, medicine – emergency medicine, medicine – pediatrics, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology, integrated plastic surgery, and vascular surgery.*
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled more than 90% with U.S. seniors include dermatology (100%), medicine – emergency medicine (93.6%), medicine – pediatrics (93.5%), otolaryngology (93.2%), orthopedic surgery (92.8%), and integrated plastic surgery (90.4%).*
PGY-1 specialties with at least 30 positions that filled less than 50% with U.S. seniors include pathology (41.4 %) and surgery–preliminary (28%).
The number of U.S. citizen international medical graduates who submitted rank-ordered lists was 5,295, an increase of 128 (2.5%) over 2020 and the highest in 6 years; 3,152 of them matched to first-year positions, down two PGY-1 matched applicants over last year.
Full data are available on the NRMP’s website.
Correction, 3/22/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the affected specialties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dose-related AFib risk with omega-3 fatty acids?
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Type of bariatric surgery influences likelihood of migraine remission
Key clinical point: Over half of the patients with migraine who underwent bariatric surgery experienced migraine remission following surgery, with likelihood of remission being higher after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) than after vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG).
Major finding: Remission of migraine was observed in 55.4% of patients who underwent surgery. Likelihood of migraine remission was higher with RYGB vs. VSG (adjusted relative rate, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.17).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective analysis of 1,680 patients with chronic migraine who underwent bariatric surgery (RYGB, n=742; VSG, n=938) between 2010 and 2017.
Disclosures: No source of funding was declared. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Nudotor R et al. Obes Surg. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-05204-w.
Key clinical point: Over half of the patients with migraine who underwent bariatric surgery experienced migraine remission following surgery, with likelihood of remission being higher after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) than after vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG).
Major finding: Remission of migraine was observed in 55.4% of patients who underwent surgery. Likelihood of migraine remission was higher with RYGB vs. VSG (adjusted relative rate, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.17).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective analysis of 1,680 patients with chronic migraine who underwent bariatric surgery (RYGB, n=742; VSG, n=938) between 2010 and 2017.
Disclosures: No source of funding was declared. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Nudotor R et al. Obes Surg. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-05204-w.
Key clinical point: Over half of the patients with migraine who underwent bariatric surgery experienced migraine remission following surgery, with likelihood of remission being higher after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) than after vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG).
Major finding: Remission of migraine was observed in 55.4% of patients who underwent surgery. Likelihood of migraine remission was higher with RYGB vs. VSG (adjusted relative rate, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.17).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective analysis of 1,680 patients with chronic migraine who underwent bariatric surgery (RYGB, n=742; VSG, n=938) between 2010 and 2017.
Disclosures: No source of funding was declared. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Nudotor R et al. Obes Surg. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-05204-w.
Real-world efficacy of candesartan as a preventive migraine treatment
Key clinical point: In real-world settings, candesartan showed benefit as a preventive treatment for migraine with a 50% responder rate, similar to that observed in previous trials.
Major finding: Candesartan significantly reduced the number of headache days per month compared with baseline at weeks 8-12 (−4.3 days) and 20-24 (−4.7 days; both P less than .001). By weeks 8-12 and 20-24, 50% response was observed in 32.5% and 31.7% of patients, respectively. Common adverse events were light-headedness (5.0%), hypotension (4.2%), sleepiness (0.8%), and asthenia (0.8%).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of 120 patients with chronic or episodic migraine who received candesartan between April 2008 and February 2019.
Disclosures: The study was a dissertation project supported by Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) and the European Social Fund. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Sánchez-Rodríguez C et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83508-2.
Key clinical point: In real-world settings, candesartan showed benefit as a preventive treatment for migraine with a 50% responder rate, similar to that observed in previous trials.
Major finding: Candesartan significantly reduced the number of headache days per month compared with baseline at weeks 8-12 (−4.3 days) and 20-24 (−4.7 days; both P less than .001). By weeks 8-12 and 20-24, 50% response was observed in 32.5% and 31.7% of patients, respectively. Common adverse events were light-headedness (5.0%), hypotension (4.2%), sleepiness (0.8%), and asthenia (0.8%).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of 120 patients with chronic or episodic migraine who received candesartan between April 2008 and February 2019.
Disclosures: The study was a dissertation project supported by Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) and the European Social Fund. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Sánchez-Rodríguez C et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83508-2.
Key clinical point: In real-world settings, candesartan showed benefit as a preventive treatment for migraine with a 50% responder rate, similar to that observed in previous trials.
Major finding: Candesartan significantly reduced the number of headache days per month compared with baseline at weeks 8-12 (−4.3 days) and 20-24 (−4.7 days; both P less than .001). By weeks 8-12 and 20-24, 50% response was observed in 32.5% and 31.7% of patients, respectively. Common adverse events were light-headedness (5.0%), hypotension (4.2%), sleepiness (0.8%), and asthenia (0.8%).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of 120 patients with chronic or episodic migraine who received candesartan between April 2008 and February 2019.
Disclosures: The study was a dissertation project supported by Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) and the European Social Fund. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Sánchez-Rodríguez C et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83508-2.