A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.

That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.

“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.

However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.

Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.

The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.

During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.

The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.

Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
 

Registry data study

To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).

The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.

The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.

Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.

“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
 

Real-world results

Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”

Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.

Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.

“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.

No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.

SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Patients receiving even top-notch hospital care for heart failure (HF) are, once discharged to home, at higher short-term risk of another HF hospitalization if home is in a socioeconomically deprived neighborhood. That helps explain why Blacks in the United States have a much higher 30-day HF readmission risk than Whites, a disparity that only worsens with the level of neighborhood deprivation, a new analysis suggests.

Some systemic and entrenched socioeconomic inequities that health care providers have little sway over, and which disproportionately affect Black individuals, are independent and robust predictors of worsened HF outcomes, Alanna A. Morris, MD, MSc, Emory University, Atlanta, said during her presentation at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

In a retrospective cohort study, Blacks had a 45% higher risk of 30-day readmission than Whites (P < .001) independent of cardiovascular risk factors, clinical history, comorbidities, type and location of hospital, and type of third-party payer coverage. The analysis included more than 30,000 patients with at least one HF hospitalization at centers in a major metropolitan health system.

The racial disparity widened with worsening socioeconomic deprivation of patients’ residential neighborhoods, that is, with rising quartiles of neighborhood scores on the Social Deprivation Index (SDI).

The SDI, based on U.S. census data, incorporates seven socioeconomic criteria, including household income, education level, employment, and prevalence of rented housing and households that are without a car, single parent, or overcrowded.

There was a 4–percentage point gap in adjusted 30-day readmission rate between Blacks and Whites in the lowest quartile that widened to more than 8 points by the third quartile; the disparity in both the second and fourth quartiles was the same, at about 5.5 percentage points.

A remaining question, Dr. Morris said in an interview, is why the outcomes disparity between Blacks and Whites peaks in the third SDI quartile but drops a bit in the fourth quartile representing the most severe neighborhood deprivation.

“Our hypothesis is that when you look at patients who are the poorest, who live in the most deprived neighborhoods, race may be less of a factor,” she said. Socioeconomic deprivation may have similar consequences for everyone “regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or other demographic characteristics if you live in a neighborhood that’s highly deprived.”

Based on the current study, “it does appear that increased heart failure incident rates are related to living in deprived neighborhoods, and it raises important clinical and public health concerns that must be addressed,” Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, said as invited discussant after the presentation from Dr. Morris.

“These findings could serve as an aid to policy makers, going forward, in terms of allocating resources for primary health care,” he said. “And it’s important looking at these data and other [data] that we target heart failure patients who reside in deprived neighborhoods before, during, and [after] hospitalization.”

Dr. Morris agreed that policy makers are in a better position to attack the racial disparity in HF readmission rates identified in the study. “This is not a problem that can be fixed within the health care system.”

If the reported interpretation is correct, it could add a twist to the public health care debate in the United States, observed session moderator Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital in Boston.

That debate, he noted, has often focused on insurability, access to coverage, and the merits or shortcomings of a single-payer system. Yet the study suggests outcomes disparities stemming from neighborhood deprivation will not be corrected by improved access to health insurance, a conclusion he finds “startling,” Dr. Mehra said in an interview.

Some proposed explanations for the disparities by race blame unequal access to health care and or variable health insurance coverage, Dr. Morris observed in an interview. But “that may not fully explain the increased risk that we see.”

Black patients followed at Emory University’s advanced HF clinic still have a higher risk of rehospitalization than Whites. “These are patients who have insurance, who are followed by advanced heart failure providers, who are on equal amounts of guideline-recommended medical therapy – and you still see about a 50% higher risk of rehospitalization,” Dr. Morris said, citing data that isn’t part of the current analysis.

“We can say that these patients are certainly able to access care, because they are able to access our emergency room and be taken care of within the hospital setting,” he said. The study controlled for whether health coverage was by private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Instead, the current analysis points to socioeconomic and environmental factors as a major source of the disparity in 30-day readmissions, Dr. Morris said.

“When patients are discharged from our healthcare systems, they still go back into environments where they don’t have the same resources as patients who live in higher-SDI neighborhoods,” she explained.

For example, “we tell them to eat low-sodium [foods], exercise, eat fresh fruits and vegetables, take their medicines, but the reality is that certain neighborhoods within the United States – and this is much more true for Blacks – make it very difficult to follow those self-care recommendations.”

The analysis included 16,147 Black patients and 14,483 White patients hospitalized with HF within the Emory Healthcare system at least once from 2010-2018, Dr. Morris reported. Compared with Whites, Blacks were younger (63.5 vs 69.1 years) and less likely to be 65 or older (48.9% vs. 66.5%); more likely to be women (53.5% vs. 42.2%), more likely to reside in deprived census tracts and to have diabetes, hypertension, or chronic kidney disease; and had higher comorbidity scores.

In all, 20.6% of Black and 13.5% of White patients were readmitted for HF within 30 days of discharge, for an unadjusted risk ratio of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.44-1.61).

The RR hardly budged, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.37-1.54, P < .001), after adjustment for age, sex, type of insurance, type of HF, vital signs and laboratory values, medical history (diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, and chronic pulmonary disease), Charlson Comorbidity Index, discharging medical specialty, and hospital location.

The excess in 30-day HF readmissions for Black, compared with White patients climbed from the first to the third neighborhood SDI quartile, the disparity peaking at 8.2 absolute percentage points.

A major criticism of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program component of the Affordable Care Act, Dr. Morris said in a Q&A discussion after her presentation, is that it can hold hospitals “responsible for structural inequalities that exist beyond the health care system,” including neighborhood deprivation.

“But public policy makers have to realize that there are certain patients we take care of who don’t have the resources to carry out the therapeutic lifestyle changes that will allow them to live healthy.”

The HRRP’s 30-day HF readmission metric that steers reimbursement “is penalizing health care systems across the United States” with its premise that hospital performance can be measured by 30-day HF readmission rates, Dr. Morris said in an interview.

“The reality is that some of these patients are going to a postdischarge environment that is inherently high risk, and that many of them are going to come back to us within 30 days,” she said. “We would like to make sure that we don’t put excess penalties on health care systems that take care of disproportionate numbers of African Americans in neighborhoods that have fewer resources.”

Dr. Morris and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehra discloses consulting or serving on an advisory board for Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Leviticus, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Portola, Bayer, the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, and Mesoblast.

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

Patients receiving even top-notch hospital care for heart failure (HF) are, once discharged to home, at higher short-term risk of another HF hospitalization if home is in a socioeconomically deprived neighborhood. That helps explain why Blacks in the United States have a much higher 30-day HF readmission risk than Whites, a disparity that only worsens with the level of neighborhood deprivation, a new analysis suggests.

Some systemic and entrenched socioeconomic inequities that health care providers have little sway over, and which disproportionately affect Black individuals, are independent and robust predictors of worsened HF outcomes, Alanna A. Morris, MD, MSc, Emory University, Atlanta, said during her presentation at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

In a retrospective cohort study, Blacks had a 45% higher risk of 30-day readmission than Whites (P < .001) independent of cardiovascular risk factors, clinical history, comorbidities, type and location of hospital, and type of third-party payer coverage. The analysis included more than 30,000 patients with at least one HF hospitalization at centers in a major metropolitan health system.

The racial disparity widened with worsening socioeconomic deprivation of patients’ residential neighborhoods, that is, with rising quartiles of neighborhood scores on the Social Deprivation Index (SDI).

The SDI, based on U.S. census data, incorporates seven socioeconomic criteria, including household income, education level, employment, and prevalence of rented housing and households that are without a car, single parent, or overcrowded.

There was a 4–percentage point gap in adjusted 30-day readmission rate between Blacks and Whites in the lowest quartile that widened to more than 8 points by the third quartile; the disparity in both the second and fourth quartiles was the same, at about 5.5 percentage points.

A remaining question, Dr. Morris said in an interview, is why the outcomes disparity between Blacks and Whites peaks in the third SDI quartile but drops a bit in the fourth quartile representing the most severe neighborhood deprivation.

“Our hypothesis is that when you look at patients who are the poorest, who live in the most deprived neighborhoods, race may be less of a factor,” she said. Socioeconomic deprivation may have similar consequences for everyone “regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or other demographic characteristics if you live in a neighborhood that’s highly deprived.”

Based on the current study, “it does appear that increased heart failure incident rates are related to living in deprived neighborhoods, and it raises important clinical and public health concerns that must be addressed,” Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, said as invited discussant after the presentation from Dr. Morris.

“These findings could serve as an aid to policy makers, going forward, in terms of allocating resources for primary health care,” he said. “And it’s important looking at these data and other [data] that we target heart failure patients who reside in deprived neighborhoods before, during, and [after] hospitalization.”

Dr. Morris agreed that policy makers are in a better position to attack the racial disparity in HF readmission rates identified in the study. “This is not a problem that can be fixed within the health care system.”

If the reported interpretation is correct, it could add a twist to the public health care debate in the United States, observed session moderator Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital in Boston.

That debate, he noted, has often focused on insurability, access to coverage, and the merits or shortcomings of a single-payer system. Yet the study suggests outcomes disparities stemming from neighborhood deprivation will not be corrected by improved access to health insurance, a conclusion he finds “startling,” Dr. Mehra said in an interview.

Some proposed explanations for the disparities by race blame unequal access to health care and or variable health insurance coverage, Dr. Morris observed in an interview. But “that may not fully explain the increased risk that we see.”

Black patients followed at Emory University’s advanced HF clinic still have a higher risk of rehospitalization than Whites. “These are patients who have insurance, who are followed by advanced heart failure providers, who are on equal amounts of guideline-recommended medical therapy – and you still see about a 50% higher risk of rehospitalization,” Dr. Morris said, citing data that isn’t part of the current analysis.

“We can say that these patients are certainly able to access care, because they are able to access our emergency room and be taken care of within the hospital setting,” he said. The study controlled for whether health coverage was by private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Instead, the current analysis points to socioeconomic and environmental factors as a major source of the disparity in 30-day readmissions, Dr. Morris said.

“When patients are discharged from our healthcare systems, they still go back into environments where they don’t have the same resources as patients who live in higher-SDI neighborhoods,” she explained.

For example, “we tell them to eat low-sodium [foods], exercise, eat fresh fruits and vegetables, take their medicines, but the reality is that certain neighborhoods within the United States – and this is much more true for Blacks – make it very difficult to follow those self-care recommendations.”

The analysis included 16,147 Black patients and 14,483 White patients hospitalized with HF within the Emory Healthcare system at least once from 2010-2018, Dr. Morris reported. Compared with Whites, Blacks were younger (63.5 vs 69.1 years) and less likely to be 65 or older (48.9% vs. 66.5%); more likely to be women (53.5% vs. 42.2%), more likely to reside in deprived census tracts and to have diabetes, hypertension, or chronic kidney disease; and had higher comorbidity scores.

In all, 20.6% of Black and 13.5% of White patients were readmitted for HF within 30 days of discharge, for an unadjusted risk ratio of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.44-1.61).

The RR hardly budged, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.37-1.54, P < .001), after adjustment for age, sex, type of insurance, type of HF, vital signs and laboratory values, medical history (diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, and chronic pulmonary disease), Charlson Comorbidity Index, discharging medical specialty, and hospital location.

The excess in 30-day HF readmissions for Black, compared with White patients climbed from the first to the third neighborhood SDI quartile, the disparity peaking at 8.2 absolute percentage points.

A major criticism of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program component of the Affordable Care Act, Dr. Morris said in a Q&A discussion after her presentation, is that it can hold hospitals “responsible for structural inequalities that exist beyond the health care system,” including neighborhood deprivation.

“But public policy makers have to realize that there are certain patients we take care of who don’t have the resources to carry out the therapeutic lifestyle changes that will allow them to live healthy.”

The HRRP’s 30-day HF readmission metric that steers reimbursement “is penalizing health care systems across the United States” with its premise that hospital performance can be measured by 30-day HF readmission rates, Dr. Morris said in an interview.

“The reality is that some of these patients are going to a postdischarge environment that is inherently high risk, and that many of them are going to come back to us within 30 days,” she said. “We would like to make sure that we don’t put excess penalties on health care systems that take care of disproportionate numbers of African Americans in neighborhoods that have fewer resources.”

Dr. Morris and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehra discloses consulting or serving on an advisory board for Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Leviticus, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Portola, Bayer, the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, and Mesoblast.

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

Patients receiving even top-notch hospital care for heart failure (HF) are, once discharged to home, at higher short-term risk of another HF hospitalization if home is in a socioeconomically deprived neighborhood. That helps explain why Blacks in the United States have a much higher 30-day HF readmission risk than Whites, a disparity that only worsens with the level of neighborhood deprivation, a new analysis suggests.

Some systemic and entrenched socioeconomic inequities that health care providers have little sway over, and which disproportionately affect Black individuals, are independent and robust predictors of worsened HF outcomes, Alanna A. Morris, MD, MSc, Emory University, Atlanta, said during her presentation at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

In a retrospective cohort study, Blacks had a 45% higher risk of 30-day readmission than Whites (P < .001) independent of cardiovascular risk factors, clinical history, comorbidities, type and location of hospital, and type of third-party payer coverage. The analysis included more than 30,000 patients with at least one HF hospitalization at centers in a major metropolitan health system.

The racial disparity widened with worsening socioeconomic deprivation of patients’ residential neighborhoods, that is, with rising quartiles of neighborhood scores on the Social Deprivation Index (SDI).

The SDI, based on U.S. census data, incorporates seven socioeconomic criteria, including household income, education level, employment, and prevalence of rented housing and households that are without a car, single parent, or overcrowded.

There was a 4–percentage point gap in adjusted 30-day readmission rate between Blacks and Whites in the lowest quartile that widened to more than 8 points by the third quartile; the disparity in both the second and fourth quartiles was the same, at about 5.5 percentage points.

A remaining question, Dr. Morris said in an interview, is why the outcomes disparity between Blacks and Whites peaks in the third SDI quartile but drops a bit in the fourth quartile representing the most severe neighborhood deprivation.

“Our hypothesis is that when you look at patients who are the poorest, who live in the most deprived neighborhoods, race may be less of a factor,” she said. Socioeconomic deprivation may have similar consequences for everyone “regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or other demographic characteristics if you live in a neighborhood that’s highly deprived.”

Based on the current study, “it does appear that increased heart failure incident rates are related to living in deprived neighborhoods, and it raises important clinical and public health concerns that must be addressed,” Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, said as invited discussant after the presentation from Dr. Morris.

“These findings could serve as an aid to policy makers, going forward, in terms of allocating resources for primary health care,” he said. “And it’s important looking at these data and other [data] that we target heart failure patients who reside in deprived neighborhoods before, during, and [after] hospitalization.”

Dr. Morris agreed that policy makers are in a better position to attack the racial disparity in HF readmission rates identified in the study. “This is not a problem that can be fixed within the health care system.”

If the reported interpretation is correct, it could add a twist to the public health care debate in the United States, observed session moderator Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital in Boston.

That debate, he noted, has often focused on insurability, access to coverage, and the merits or shortcomings of a single-payer system. Yet the study suggests outcomes disparities stemming from neighborhood deprivation will not be corrected by improved access to health insurance, a conclusion he finds “startling,” Dr. Mehra said in an interview.

Some proposed explanations for the disparities by race blame unequal access to health care and or variable health insurance coverage, Dr. Morris observed in an interview. But “that may not fully explain the increased risk that we see.”

Black patients followed at Emory University’s advanced HF clinic still have a higher risk of rehospitalization than Whites. “These are patients who have insurance, who are followed by advanced heart failure providers, who are on equal amounts of guideline-recommended medical therapy – and you still see about a 50% higher risk of rehospitalization,” Dr. Morris said, citing data that isn’t part of the current analysis.

“We can say that these patients are certainly able to access care, because they are able to access our emergency room and be taken care of within the hospital setting,” he said. The study controlled for whether health coverage was by private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Instead, the current analysis points to socioeconomic and environmental factors as a major source of the disparity in 30-day readmissions, Dr. Morris said.

“When patients are discharged from our healthcare systems, they still go back into environments where they don’t have the same resources as patients who live in higher-SDI neighborhoods,” she explained.

For example, “we tell them to eat low-sodium [foods], exercise, eat fresh fruits and vegetables, take their medicines, but the reality is that certain neighborhoods within the United States – and this is much more true for Blacks – make it very difficult to follow those self-care recommendations.”

The analysis included 16,147 Black patients and 14,483 White patients hospitalized with HF within the Emory Healthcare system at least once from 2010-2018, Dr. Morris reported. Compared with Whites, Blacks were younger (63.5 vs 69.1 years) and less likely to be 65 or older (48.9% vs. 66.5%); more likely to be women (53.5% vs. 42.2%), more likely to reside in deprived census tracts and to have diabetes, hypertension, or chronic kidney disease; and had higher comorbidity scores.

In all, 20.6% of Black and 13.5% of White patients were readmitted for HF within 30 days of discharge, for an unadjusted risk ratio of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.44-1.61).

The RR hardly budged, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.37-1.54, P < .001), after adjustment for age, sex, type of insurance, type of HF, vital signs and laboratory values, medical history (diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, and chronic pulmonary disease), Charlson Comorbidity Index, discharging medical specialty, and hospital location.

The excess in 30-day HF readmissions for Black, compared with White patients climbed from the first to the third neighborhood SDI quartile, the disparity peaking at 8.2 absolute percentage points.

A major criticism of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program component of the Affordable Care Act, Dr. Morris said in a Q&A discussion after her presentation, is that it can hold hospitals “responsible for structural inequalities that exist beyond the health care system,” including neighborhood deprivation.

“But public policy makers have to realize that there are certain patients we take care of who don’t have the resources to carry out the therapeutic lifestyle changes that will allow them to live healthy.”

The HRRP’s 30-day HF readmission metric that steers reimbursement “is penalizing health care systems across the United States” with its premise that hospital performance can be measured by 30-day HF readmission rates, Dr. Morris said in an interview.

“The reality is that some of these patients are going to a postdischarge environment that is inherently high risk, and that many of them are going to come back to us within 30 days,” she said. “We would like to make sure that we don’t put excess penalties on health care systems that take care of disproportionate numbers of African Americans in neighborhoods that have fewer resources.”

Dr. Morris and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehra discloses consulting or serving on an advisory board for Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Leviticus, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Portola, Bayer, the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, and Mesoblast.

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

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Hysterectomies performed using an abdominal surgical approach or in women with endometriosis are more likely to carry an increased risk of bowel injury, according to recent results published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Cici R. Zhu, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues retrospectively studied the incidence of bowel injury in women participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent hysterectomy for a benign surgical indication between 2012 and 2016.

“Although the absolute incidence is low, bowel injuries are among the most devastating complications of hysterectomy, as they can lead to a wide range of complications, including peritonitis, abscess formation, enterocutaneous fistula, sepsis, and even death,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “Secondary bowel surgeries are often required, and associated ileostomies and colostomies can be distressing to patients. This not only severely affects quality of life, but the resultant readmissions, reoperations, and prolonged hospitalizations can impose a substantial economic toll on the health care system.”

Overall, 155,557 women were included in the study. The cohort consisted of women who were a mean age of 48 years and had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m². The researchers evaluated whether baseline characteristics, clinical, and surgical variables impacted the incidence of bowel injury. They analyzed data of participant age, race (White vs. non-White), BMI, comorbid conditions (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and bleeding disorder), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical approach (abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal), hysterectomy type (total or subtotal), lysis of adhesions, operation time, and admission type. Indication for hysterectomy was also evaluated, which included uterine leiomyoma (32.9%), menstrual disorders (22.0%), genital prolapse (13.1%), endometriosis (6.8%) and pelvic pain (3.8%).
 

Endometriosis, abdominal approach raise risk

There were 610 cases of bowel injury observed in the study, for an overall injury rate of 0.39%. A majority of the repairs were done during surgery (82.3%), with the remainder performed within 30 days of hysterectomy. Women with endometriosis had the most frequent incidence of bowel injury (0.59%), but it also occurred in women with uterine leiomyomas (0.47%), pain (0.24%), menstrual disorders (0.20%), genital prolapse (0.18%) and other indications (0.56%).

Dr. Zhu and colleagues found risk of bowel injury was higher among women 55 years and older, compared with women aged younger than 40 years (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.15); in non-White women, compared with White women (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28); and in women with class 3 obesity, compared with women at a normal BMI (OR, 1.81; 95 CI, 1.40-2.34). Other risk factors for bowel injury included hypertension (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64) and ASA III, IV, and V classification, compared with ASA I classification (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Researchers noted there was a statistically significant difference in rates of bowel injury between hysterectomy indications (P < .001). When compared with endometriosis, there were lower odds of bowel injury among women with uterine leiomyomas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.59), genital prolapse (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67), and menstrual disorder (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48).

Surgical factors also impacted the risk for bowel injury. In hysterectomies where the abdominal approach was used, there was an over-tenfold risk of bowel injury, compared with when a vaginal approach was used (OR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.31-15.95). Lysis of lesions carried an increased risk of bowel injury (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.20-4.40), and a subtotal hysterectomy increased the risk of bowel injury, compared with when a total hysterectomy was performed (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.42-2.18).

The researchers acknowledged the lack of detailed clinical information on surgical indications, severity of bowel injury, and training of the surgeons and surgical team, and potential for missing information may limit the application of the study findings.
 

Findings must be cautiously interpreted

Kate Stampler, DO, assistant program director of minimally invasive gynecologic robotic surgery at Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the study by Zhu et al. is a good reminder of the patient and surgical risk factors that can occur that affect outcomes of hysterectomy.

“In my clinical practice, I have not seen a significant difference in route of hysterectomy and bowel injury, however, this must be interpreted carefully in the context of an infrequent complication and as an MIS [minimally invasive surgery]-trained surgeon performing various complex cases,” she said. Other reports in the literature have not identified a difference in the rate of bowel injury based on surgical approach, but the study by Zhu et al. is “unique to the literature in its large sample size,” she explained.

“I would encourage less experienced surgeons to operate with a higher-volume assistant surgeon if the end result means being able to perform an MIS approach, or appropriately offer referral if feasible to another surgeon for best practices. A thorough informed consent of the available route of hysterectomy is integral to good surgical care and allows for shared decision making for the patient,” Dr. Stampler said. “Additionally, participation in a large quality reporting system such as ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database should be considered broadly and we should strive for overall high-value care.”

Regarding endometriosis being a risk factor for bowel injury during hysterectomy, Dr. Stampler noted that severe endometriosis poses a significant challenge for gynecologic surgeons. “Loss of anatomic planes due to dense adhesions and fibrosis, in addition to deep infiltrating lesions, can add significant time, complexity, and risk to the procedure. This can be compounded in a scenario with less experienced surgeons and unplanned disease at the time of surgery.”

Dr. Stampler also applauded the paper for highlighting the differences in White and non-White patient outcomes for hysterectomy, and emphasized that it is not new information. “Their call to continue to address the social determinants of health in an effort to minimize risk and maximize safety for our patients of color is of critical importance now more than ever. While the hypothesis for this study was not meant to address this challenge specifically, the data should serve as a striking reminder that while several factors may be playing a role in surgical complications, ongoing systemic racism is a component that needs dedicated time and attention.”

Dr. Zhu and three coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures. One coauthor received support from the University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation to conduct this research. Two other coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical and medical technology companies. Dr. Stampler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zhu CR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004007.

Hysterectomies performed using an abdominal surgical approach or in women with endometriosis are more likely to carry an increased risk of bowel injury, according to recent results published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Cici R. Zhu, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues retrospectively studied the incidence of bowel injury in women participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent hysterectomy for a benign surgical indication between 2012 and 2016.

“Although the absolute incidence is low, bowel injuries are among the most devastating complications of hysterectomy, as they can lead to a wide range of complications, including peritonitis, abscess formation, enterocutaneous fistula, sepsis, and even death,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “Secondary bowel surgeries are often required, and associated ileostomies and colostomies can be distressing to patients. This not only severely affects quality of life, but the resultant readmissions, reoperations, and prolonged hospitalizations can impose a substantial economic toll on the health care system.”

Overall, 155,557 women were included in the study. The cohort consisted of women who were a mean age of 48 years and had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m². The researchers evaluated whether baseline characteristics, clinical, and surgical variables impacted the incidence of bowel injury. They analyzed data of participant age, race (White vs. non-White), BMI, comorbid conditions (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and bleeding disorder), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical approach (abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal), hysterectomy type (total or subtotal), lysis of adhesions, operation time, and admission type. Indication for hysterectomy was also evaluated, which included uterine leiomyoma (32.9%), menstrual disorders (22.0%), genital prolapse (13.1%), endometriosis (6.8%) and pelvic pain (3.8%).
 

Endometriosis, abdominal approach raise risk

There were 610 cases of bowel injury observed in the study, for an overall injury rate of 0.39%. A majority of the repairs were done during surgery (82.3%), with the remainder performed within 30 days of hysterectomy. Women with endometriosis had the most frequent incidence of bowel injury (0.59%), but it also occurred in women with uterine leiomyomas (0.47%), pain (0.24%), menstrual disorders (0.20%), genital prolapse (0.18%) and other indications (0.56%).

Dr. Zhu and colleagues found risk of bowel injury was higher among women 55 years and older, compared with women aged younger than 40 years (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.15); in non-White women, compared with White women (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28); and in women with class 3 obesity, compared with women at a normal BMI (OR, 1.81; 95 CI, 1.40-2.34). Other risk factors for bowel injury included hypertension (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64) and ASA III, IV, and V classification, compared with ASA I classification (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Researchers noted there was a statistically significant difference in rates of bowel injury between hysterectomy indications (P < .001). When compared with endometriosis, there were lower odds of bowel injury among women with uterine leiomyomas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.59), genital prolapse (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67), and menstrual disorder (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48).

Surgical factors also impacted the risk for bowel injury. In hysterectomies where the abdominal approach was used, there was an over-tenfold risk of bowel injury, compared with when a vaginal approach was used (OR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.31-15.95). Lysis of lesions carried an increased risk of bowel injury (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.20-4.40), and a subtotal hysterectomy increased the risk of bowel injury, compared with when a total hysterectomy was performed (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.42-2.18).

The researchers acknowledged the lack of detailed clinical information on surgical indications, severity of bowel injury, and training of the surgeons and surgical team, and potential for missing information may limit the application of the study findings.
 

Findings must be cautiously interpreted

Kate Stampler, DO, assistant program director of minimally invasive gynecologic robotic surgery at Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the study by Zhu et al. is a good reminder of the patient and surgical risk factors that can occur that affect outcomes of hysterectomy.

“In my clinical practice, I have not seen a significant difference in route of hysterectomy and bowel injury, however, this must be interpreted carefully in the context of an infrequent complication and as an MIS [minimally invasive surgery]-trained surgeon performing various complex cases,” she said. Other reports in the literature have not identified a difference in the rate of bowel injury based on surgical approach, but the study by Zhu et al. is “unique to the literature in its large sample size,” she explained.

“I would encourage less experienced surgeons to operate with a higher-volume assistant surgeon if the end result means being able to perform an MIS approach, or appropriately offer referral if feasible to another surgeon for best practices. A thorough informed consent of the available route of hysterectomy is integral to good surgical care and allows for shared decision making for the patient,” Dr. Stampler said. “Additionally, participation in a large quality reporting system such as ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database should be considered broadly and we should strive for overall high-value care.”

Regarding endometriosis being a risk factor for bowel injury during hysterectomy, Dr. Stampler noted that severe endometriosis poses a significant challenge for gynecologic surgeons. “Loss of anatomic planes due to dense adhesions and fibrosis, in addition to deep infiltrating lesions, can add significant time, complexity, and risk to the procedure. This can be compounded in a scenario with less experienced surgeons and unplanned disease at the time of surgery.”

Dr. Stampler also applauded the paper for highlighting the differences in White and non-White patient outcomes for hysterectomy, and emphasized that it is not new information. “Their call to continue to address the social determinants of health in an effort to minimize risk and maximize safety for our patients of color is of critical importance now more than ever. While the hypothesis for this study was not meant to address this challenge specifically, the data should serve as a striking reminder that while several factors may be playing a role in surgical complications, ongoing systemic racism is a component that needs dedicated time and attention.”

Dr. Zhu and three coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures. One coauthor received support from the University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation to conduct this research. Two other coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical and medical technology companies. Dr. Stampler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zhu CR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004007.

Hysterectomies performed using an abdominal surgical approach or in women with endometriosis are more likely to carry an increased risk of bowel injury, according to recent results published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Cici R. Zhu, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues retrospectively studied the incidence of bowel injury in women participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent hysterectomy for a benign surgical indication between 2012 and 2016.

“Although the absolute incidence is low, bowel injuries are among the most devastating complications of hysterectomy, as they can lead to a wide range of complications, including peritonitis, abscess formation, enterocutaneous fistula, sepsis, and even death,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “Secondary bowel surgeries are often required, and associated ileostomies and colostomies can be distressing to patients. This not only severely affects quality of life, but the resultant readmissions, reoperations, and prolonged hospitalizations can impose a substantial economic toll on the health care system.”

Overall, 155,557 women were included in the study. The cohort consisted of women who were a mean age of 48 years and had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m². The researchers evaluated whether baseline characteristics, clinical, and surgical variables impacted the incidence of bowel injury. They analyzed data of participant age, race (White vs. non-White), BMI, comorbid conditions (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and bleeding disorder), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical approach (abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal), hysterectomy type (total or subtotal), lysis of adhesions, operation time, and admission type. Indication for hysterectomy was also evaluated, which included uterine leiomyoma (32.9%), menstrual disorders (22.0%), genital prolapse (13.1%), endometriosis (6.8%) and pelvic pain (3.8%).
 

Endometriosis, abdominal approach raise risk

There were 610 cases of bowel injury observed in the study, for an overall injury rate of 0.39%. A majority of the repairs were done during surgery (82.3%), with the remainder performed within 30 days of hysterectomy. Women with endometriosis had the most frequent incidence of bowel injury (0.59%), but it also occurred in women with uterine leiomyomas (0.47%), pain (0.24%), menstrual disorders (0.20%), genital prolapse (0.18%) and other indications (0.56%).

Dr. Zhu and colleagues found risk of bowel injury was higher among women 55 years and older, compared with women aged younger than 40 years (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.15); in non-White women, compared with White women (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28); and in women with class 3 obesity, compared with women at a normal BMI (OR, 1.81; 95 CI, 1.40-2.34). Other risk factors for bowel injury included hypertension (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64) and ASA III, IV, and V classification, compared with ASA I classification (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Researchers noted there was a statistically significant difference in rates of bowel injury between hysterectomy indications (P < .001). When compared with endometriosis, there were lower odds of bowel injury among women with uterine leiomyomas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.59), genital prolapse (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67), and menstrual disorder (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48).

Surgical factors also impacted the risk for bowel injury. In hysterectomies where the abdominal approach was used, there was an over-tenfold risk of bowel injury, compared with when a vaginal approach was used (OR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.31-15.95). Lysis of lesions carried an increased risk of bowel injury (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.20-4.40), and a subtotal hysterectomy increased the risk of bowel injury, compared with when a total hysterectomy was performed (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.42-2.18).

The researchers acknowledged the lack of detailed clinical information on surgical indications, severity of bowel injury, and training of the surgeons and surgical team, and potential for missing information may limit the application of the study findings.
 

Findings must be cautiously interpreted

Kate Stampler, DO, assistant program director of minimally invasive gynecologic robotic surgery at Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the study by Zhu et al. is a good reminder of the patient and surgical risk factors that can occur that affect outcomes of hysterectomy.

“In my clinical practice, I have not seen a significant difference in route of hysterectomy and bowel injury, however, this must be interpreted carefully in the context of an infrequent complication and as an MIS [minimally invasive surgery]-trained surgeon performing various complex cases,” she said. Other reports in the literature have not identified a difference in the rate of bowel injury based on surgical approach, but the study by Zhu et al. is “unique to the literature in its large sample size,” she explained.

“I would encourage less experienced surgeons to operate with a higher-volume assistant surgeon if the end result means being able to perform an MIS approach, or appropriately offer referral if feasible to another surgeon for best practices. A thorough informed consent of the available route of hysterectomy is integral to good surgical care and allows for shared decision making for the patient,” Dr. Stampler said. “Additionally, participation in a large quality reporting system such as ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database should be considered broadly and we should strive for overall high-value care.”

Regarding endometriosis being a risk factor for bowel injury during hysterectomy, Dr. Stampler noted that severe endometriosis poses a significant challenge for gynecologic surgeons. “Loss of anatomic planes due to dense adhesions and fibrosis, in addition to deep infiltrating lesions, can add significant time, complexity, and risk to the procedure. This can be compounded in a scenario with less experienced surgeons and unplanned disease at the time of surgery.”

Dr. Stampler also applauded the paper for highlighting the differences in White and non-White patient outcomes for hysterectomy, and emphasized that it is not new information. “Their call to continue to address the social determinants of health in an effort to minimize risk and maximize safety for our patients of color is of critical importance now more than ever. While the hypothesis for this study was not meant to address this challenge specifically, the data should serve as a striking reminder that while several factors may be playing a role in surgical complications, ongoing systemic racism is a component that needs dedicated time and attention.”

Dr. Zhu and three coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures. One coauthor received support from the University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation to conduct this research. Two other coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical and medical technology companies. Dr. Stampler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zhu CR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004007.

Implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for cesarean delivery led to decreased opioid use, shorter length of stay, and decreased costs, according to recent research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

©Cameron Whitman/Thinkstock

Luciana Mullman, MPH, of Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., and colleagues used a pre-post study design to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS at a tertiary care institution after implementing the program for patients undergoing scheduled or emergent cesarean delivery between December 2018 and August 2019. The researchers compared the rates of opioid use, length of stay, and costs of care for patients undergoing cesarean section after ERAS was implemented with those outcomes for cesarean deliveries at the center prior to ERAS between January 2018 and December 2018.
 

The ERAS program

ERAS was described in the study as incorporating a preoperative strategy, intraoperative management and postoperative care for cesarean delivery. The preoperative strategy consisted of a patient guidebook and a personal meeting for patient education on what to expect for preoperative and postoperative experiences as well as instructions leading up to the surgery.

For intraoperative management, intravenous opioids were minimized and replaced with neuraxial opioids when appropriate. The patient’s body temperature was monitored and controlled during the intraoperative pathway, and fluid balance was maintained. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, IV ondansetron at a dose of 4 mg was started at the beginning of the cesarean delivery. When the cesarean delivery was complete, an anesthesiologist administered transversus abdominis plane blocks with 0.3% ropivacaine 30 mL on each side before the patient moved to the recovery area.

Postoperatively, the patient’s catheter was removed in the recovery room, and then transferred to postpartum floors if appropriate based on patient status. Patients began resuming a clear liquid diet 1 hour after cesarean delivery and a regular diet 6 hours after delivery. At 6 hours after surgery, the patient was out of bed and moving; walks around the nursing unit were scheduled three times per day at minimum. For pain, patients were given a 1,000-mg acetaminophen tablet every 8 hours, a 600-mg ibuprofen tablet every 6 hours, and dextromethorphan 30 mg/mL every 8 hours, with oral oxycodone 5 mg administered after physician evaluation for breakthrough pain.

Overall, there were 3,679 cesarean deliveries in the study, which included 2,171 deliveries prior to ERAS implementation and 1,508 cesarean deliveries after implementation. Patients with a scheduled cesarean delivery prior to ERAS implementation received no consistent educational program for anticipating cesarean delivery. After implementation, those patients with scheduled cesarean delivery received the full preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathway, while emergent cesarean cases included the intraoperative management and postoperative care, but did not contain the preoperative component.
 

Improved outcomes after ERAS

The researchers found a significant decrease in the use of opioids after implementing ERAS at the center, with 24% of patients receiving opioids after ERAS, compared with 84% of patients prior to ERAS (odds ratio, 16.8; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-19.9; P < .001). These reductions in opioid use from the pre- and postimplementation periods were similar for patients with scheduled cesarean deliveries (85% vs. 27%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 12.2-18.3; P < .001) and emergent cesarean deliveries (83% vs. 19%; OR, 21.4; 95% CI, 16.1-28.7; P < .001).

There was also a significant reduction in total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for patients who received opioids after ERAS (median, 15.0 MME), compared with before (median, 56.5 MME) implementing ERAS (mean relative change, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < .001). These results also were significant among both scheduled (median 59.9 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36; P < .001) and emergent (median 56.5 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01; P < .001) cesarean deliveries.

The overall length of stay after cesarean delivery significantly decreased after ERAS from an average of 3.2 days to 2.7 days (mean relative change, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.80-0.83; P < .001), and was significant in both scheduled (3.2 vs. 2.7 days; mean relative change, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85; P < .001) and emergent (3.1 vs. 2.5 days; mean relative change, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82; P < .001) groups. While the number of patients discharged within 2 days increased from 9% to 49% after ERAS implementation, there was no significant difference overall or in either group regarding 30-day readmission. The researchers also noted the median direct costs of cesarean delivery decreased by $349 per case after starting ERAS (mean relative change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95).
 

ERAS implementation lagging in obstetrics

In an interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the ERAS approach has been used successfully in other surgical specialties but has “lagged” in obstetrics. “To date, there has been less attention in improving perioperative outcomes for women undergoing cesarean delivery, the most common abdominal surgery for women.”

Dr. Krishna said this study shows ERAS can be used in obstetrics to improve outcomes after cesarean section without increasing readmission rates. “Overall, this study demonstrates that ERAS can be successfully implemented for cesarean delivery as it has been for a variety of surgical specialties. ERAS for cesarean delivery can improve the quality of patient care while reducing health care costs.”

Women in the postpartum and postoperative period could benefit from ERAS as they recover from surgery and adjust to becoming a new mother, Dr. Krishna noted. “The goal of ERAS is to help patients return to physiological functioning as quickly as possible. Improving postoperative recovery can help with mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding.

“Implementation of a standardized approach for cesarean delivery has the potential to reduce health disparities and the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she added. “ERAS for cesarean delivery also has the potential to address the opioid epidemic amongst reproductive-age women by improving postcesarean pain management and reducing opioid prescribing.”

Dr. Krishna also explained that an ERAS program would be feasible to implement in most centers. “It will require a shift of some elements of care from the inpatient to outpatient setting, but theoretically feasible as pregnant women frequently undergo many clinic visits during their pregnancy course.

“Education on ERAS for cesarean delivery can be implemented into prenatal care visits. ERAS implementation will also require a multidisciplinary team approach that includes obstetrics, anesthesia, nursing, pharmacy, pediatrics – all key stakeholders that will need to ‘buy in’ or be willing to support the protocol to ensure its success. As in this study, it would be helpful for hospitals to have an ERAS coordinator to champion and ensure compliance of protocol.”

Dr. Miller reported that he has received payments from the Coventus Professional Liability Insurance: Risk Management Committee and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Krishna reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mullman L et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004023.

Implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for cesarean delivery led to decreased opioid use, shorter length of stay, and decreased costs, according to recent research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

©Cameron Whitman/Thinkstock

Luciana Mullman, MPH, of Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., and colleagues used a pre-post study design to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS at a tertiary care institution after implementing the program for patients undergoing scheduled or emergent cesarean delivery between December 2018 and August 2019. The researchers compared the rates of opioid use, length of stay, and costs of care for patients undergoing cesarean section after ERAS was implemented with those outcomes for cesarean deliveries at the center prior to ERAS between January 2018 and December 2018.
 

The ERAS program

ERAS was described in the study as incorporating a preoperative strategy, intraoperative management and postoperative care for cesarean delivery. The preoperative strategy consisted of a patient guidebook and a personal meeting for patient education on what to expect for preoperative and postoperative experiences as well as instructions leading up to the surgery.

For intraoperative management, intravenous opioids were minimized and replaced with neuraxial opioids when appropriate. The patient’s body temperature was monitored and controlled during the intraoperative pathway, and fluid balance was maintained. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, IV ondansetron at a dose of 4 mg was started at the beginning of the cesarean delivery. When the cesarean delivery was complete, an anesthesiologist administered transversus abdominis plane blocks with 0.3% ropivacaine 30 mL on each side before the patient moved to the recovery area.

Postoperatively, the patient’s catheter was removed in the recovery room, and then transferred to postpartum floors if appropriate based on patient status. Patients began resuming a clear liquid diet 1 hour after cesarean delivery and a regular diet 6 hours after delivery. At 6 hours after surgery, the patient was out of bed and moving; walks around the nursing unit were scheduled three times per day at minimum. For pain, patients were given a 1,000-mg acetaminophen tablet every 8 hours, a 600-mg ibuprofen tablet every 6 hours, and dextromethorphan 30 mg/mL every 8 hours, with oral oxycodone 5 mg administered after physician evaluation for breakthrough pain.

Overall, there were 3,679 cesarean deliveries in the study, which included 2,171 deliveries prior to ERAS implementation and 1,508 cesarean deliveries after implementation. Patients with a scheduled cesarean delivery prior to ERAS implementation received no consistent educational program for anticipating cesarean delivery. After implementation, those patients with scheduled cesarean delivery received the full preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathway, while emergent cesarean cases included the intraoperative management and postoperative care, but did not contain the preoperative component.
 

Improved outcomes after ERAS

The researchers found a significant decrease in the use of opioids after implementing ERAS at the center, with 24% of patients receiving opioids after ERAS, compared with 84% of patients prior to ERAS (odds ratio, 16.8; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-19.9; P < .001). These reductions in opioid use from the pre- and postimplementation periods were similar for patients with scheduled cesarean deliveries (85% vs. 27%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 12.2-18.3; P < .001) and emergent cesarean deliveries (83% vs. 19%; OR, 21.4; 95% CI, 16.1-28.7; P < .001).

There was also a significant reduction in total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for patients who received opioids after ERAS (median, 15.0 MME), compared with before (median, 56.5 MME) implementing ERAS (mean relative change, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < .001). These results also were significant among both scheduled (median 59.9 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36; P < .001) and emergent (median 56.5 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01; P < .001) cesarean deliveries.

The overall length of stay after cesarean delivery significantly decreased after ERAS from an average of 3.2 days to 2.7 days (mean relative change, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.80-0.83; P < .001), and was significant in both scheduled (3.2 vs. 2.7 days; mean relative change, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85; P < .001) and emergent (3.1 vs. 2.5 days; mean relative change, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82; P < .001) groups. While the number of patients discharged within 2 days increased from 9% to 49% after ERAS implementation, there was no significant difference overall or in either group regarding 30-day readmission. The researchers also noted the median direct costs of cesarean delivery decreased by $349 per case after starting ERAS (mean relative change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95).
 

ERAS implementation lagging in obstetrics

In an interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the ERAS approach has been used successfully in other surgical specialties but has “lagged” in obstetrics. “To date, there has been less attention in improving perioperative outcomes for women undergoing cesarean delivery, the most common abdominal surgery for women.”

Dr. Krishna said this study shows ERAS can be used in obstetrics to improve outcomes after cesarean section without increasing readmission rates. “Overall, this study demonstrates that ERAS can be successfully implemented for cesarean delivery as it has been for a variety of surgical specialties. ERAS for cesarean delivery can improve the quality of patient care while reducing health care costs.”

Women in the postpartum and postoperative period could benefit from ERAS as they recover from surgery and adjust to becoming a new mother, Dr. Krishna noted. “The goal of ERAS is to help patients return to physiological functioning as quickly as possible. Improving postoperative recovery can help with mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding.

“Implementation of a standardized approach for cesarean delivery has the potential to reduce health disparities and the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she added. “ERAS for cesarean delivery also has the potential to address the opioid epidemic amongst reproductive-age women by improving postcesarean pain management and reducing opioid prescribing.”

Dr. Krishna also explained that an ERAS program would be feasible to implement in most centers. “It will require a shift of some elements of care from the inpatient to outpatient setting, but theoretically feasible as pregnant women frequently undergo many clinic visits during their pregnancy course.

“Education on ERAS for cesarean delivery can be implemented into prenatal care visits. ERAS implementation will also require a multidisciplinary team approach that includes obstetrics, anesthesia, nursing, pharmacy, pediatrics – all key stakeholders that will need to ‘buy in’ or be willing to support the protocol to ensure its success. As in this study, it would be helpful for hospitals to have an ERAS coordinator to champion and ensure compliance of protocol.”

Dr. Miller reported that he has received payments from the Coventus Professional Liability Insurance: Risk Management Committee and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Krishna reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mullman L et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004023.

Implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for cesarean delivery led to decreased opioid use, shorter length of stay, and decreased costs, according to recent research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

©Cameron Whitman/Thinkstock

Luciana Mullman, MPH, of Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., and colleagues used a pre-post study design to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS at a tertiary care institution after implementing the program for patients undergoing scheduled or emergent cesarean delivery between December 2018 and August 2019. The researchers compared the rates of opioid use, length of stay, and costs of care for patients undergoing cesarean section after ERAS was implemented with those outcomes for cesarean deliveries at the center prior to ERAS between January 2018 and December 2018.
 

The ERAS program

ERAS was described in the study as incorporating a preoperative strategy, intraoperative management and postoperative care for cesarean delivery. The preoperative strategy consisted of a patient guidebook and a personal meeting for patient education on what to expect for preoperative and postoperative experiences as well as instructions leading up to the surgery.

For intraoperative management, intravenous opioids were minimized and replaced with neuraxial opioids when appropriate. The patient’s body temperature was monitored and controlled during the intraoperative pathway, and fluid balance was maintained. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, IV ondansetron at a dose of 4 mg was started at the beginning of the cesarean delivery. When the cesarean delivery was complete, an anesthesiologist administered transversus abdominis plane blocks with 0.3% ropivacaine 30 mL on each side before the patient moved to the recovery area.

Postoperatively, the patient’s catheter was removed in the recovery room, and then transferred to postpartum floors if appropriate based on patient status. Patients began resuming a clear liquid diet 1 hour after cesarean delivery and a regular diet 6 hours after delivery. At 6 hours after surgery, the patient was out of bed and moving; walks around the nursing unit were scheduled three times per day at minimum. For pain, patients were given a 1,000-mg acetaminophen tablet every 8 hours, a 600-mg ibuprofen tablet every 6 hours, and dextromethorphan 30 mg/mL every 8 hours, with oral oxycodone 5 mg administered after physician evaluation for breakthrough pain.

Overall, there were 3,679 cesarean deliveries in the study, which included 2,171 deliveries prior to ERAS implementation and 1,508 cesarean deliveries after implementation. Patients with a scheduled cesarean delivery prior to ERAS implementation received no consistent educational program for anticipating cesarean delivery. After implementation, those patients with scheduled cesarean delivery received the full preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathway, while emergent cesarean cases included the intraoperative management and postoperative care, but did not contain the preoperative component.
 

Improved outcomes after ERAS

The researchers found a significant decrease in the use of opioids after implementing ERAS at the center, with 24% of patients receiving opioids after ERAS, compared with 84% of patients prior to ERAS (odds ratio, 16.8; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-19.9; P < .001). These reductions in opioid use from the pre- and postimplementation periods were similar for patients with scheduled cesarean deliveries (85% vs. 27%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 12.2-18.3; P < .001) and emergent cesarean deliveries (83% vs. 19%; OR, 21.4; 95% CI, 16.1-28.7; P < .001).

There was also a significant reduction in total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for patients who received opioids after ERAS (median, 15.0 MME), compared with before (median, 56.5 MME) implementing ERAS (mean relative change, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < .001). These results also were significant among both scheduled (median 59.9 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36; P < .001) and emergent (median 56.5 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01; P < .001) cesarean deliveries.

The overall length of stay after cesarean delivery significantly decreased after ERAS from an average of 3.2 days to 2.7 days (mean relative change, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.80-0.83; P < .001), and was significant in both scheduled (3.2 vs. 2.7 days; mean relative change, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85; P < .001) and emergent (3.1 vs. 2.5 days; mean relative change, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82; P < .001) groups. While the number of patients discharged within 2 days increased from 9% to 49% after ERAS implementation, there was no significant difference overall or in either group regarding 30-day readmission. The researchers also noted the median direct costs of cesarean delivery decreased by $349 per case after starting ERAS (mean relative change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95).
 

ERAS implementation lagging in obstetrics

In an interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the ERAS approach has been used successfully in other surgical specialties but has “lagged” in obstetrics. “To date, there has been less attention in improving perioperative outcomes for women undergoing cesarean delivery, the most common abdominal surgery for women.”

Dr. Krishna said this study shows ERAS can be used in obstetrics to improve outcomes after cesarean section without increasing readmission rates. “Overall, this study demonstrates that ERAS can be successfully implemented for cesarean delivery as it has been for a variety of surgical specialties. ERAS for cesarean delivery can improve the quality of patient care while reducing health care costs.”

Women in the postpartum and postoperative period could benefit from ERAS as they recover from surgery and adjust to becoming a new mother, Dr. Krishna noted. “The goal of ERAS is to help patients return to physiological functioning as quickly as possible. Improving postoperative recovery can help with mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding.

“Implementation of a standardized approach for cesarean delivery has the potential to reduce health disparities and the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she added. “ERAS for cesarean delivery also has the potential to address the opioid epidemic amongst reproductive-age women by improving postcesarean pain management and reducing opioid prescribing.”

Dr. Krishna also explained that an ERAS program would be feasible to implement in most centers. “It will require a shift of some elements of care from the inpatient to outpatient setting, but theoretically feasible as pregnant women frequently undergo many clinic visits during their pregnancy course.

“Education on ERAS for cesarean delivery can be implemented into prenatal care visits. ERAS implementation will also require a multidisciplinary team approach that includes obstetrics, anesthesia, nursing, pharmacy, pediatrics – all key stakeholders that will need to ‘buy in’ or be willing to support the protocol to ensure its success. As in this study, it would be helpful for hospitals to have an ERAS coordinator to champion and ensure compliance of protocol.”

Dr. Miller reported that he has received payments from the Coventus Professional Liability Insurance: Risk Management Committee and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Krishna reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mullman L et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004023.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].