A previously healthy 37-year-old runner presented to his primary care physician with acute-onset floaters and scotoma in his left eye, which he first noticed less than 24 hours earlier. He denied eye pain, diplopia, headache, fever, chills, slurred speech, weakness, or other focal neurologic deficits. His vital signs were normal.

Despite the acute visual disturbances, visual acuity was 20/20 in both eyes with corrective lenses; pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation; and extraocular movements were intact. On a dilated funduscopic exam, the physician discovered edema of the optic cup, tortuous vasculature, and microhemorrhages in the left eye (FIGURE).

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The patient was given a diagnosis of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). In this condition, a blockage causes the central retinal vein to leak blood and excess fluid into the retina. This fluid can collect in the macula, leading to visual disturbance.

Cases of central retinal vein occlusion have been linked to dehydration as well, with acute vision changes occurring after strenuous exercise.

Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease in the United States and is one of the most common causes of vision loss in the elderly.¹ Advancing age (≥ 70 years), increasing mean arterial blood pressure, and retinal atherosclerotic signs (focal narrowing, arteriovenous nicking, and opacification) are significant predictors of retinal vein occlusion.² Other risk factors include diabetes, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, smoking, obesity, hypercoagulable state, and glaucoma.^3-7 However, retinal vein occlusion may also occur in younger, healthier patients who lack the aforementioned risk factors. In such cases, thrombophilic risk factors should be considered.⁸

CRVO is classified as either ischemic or nonischemic (perfused) based on retinal angiography. More than 80% of CRVO cases are nonischemic,⁹ of which the majority has visual acuity better than 20/400, mild or no pupillary defect, and mild, unilateral visual changes.¹⁰ Nonischemic CRVO can progress to ischemic CRVO, which can result in permanent vision loss. Visual outcome is good in nonischemic CRVO and poor in ischemic CRVO.¹¹ Early detection of poor prognostic features, such as macular edema and neovascularization, is essential for minimizing the risk for permanent damage.¹²

Dilated funduscopic exam of a patient with CRVO may reveal widespread retinal hemorrhages, markedly dilated and tortuous retinal vessels, cotton wool spots, optic disc or macular edema, and/or vitreous hemorrhages.¹⁰

Differential includes varied conditions that can affect vision

CRVO may manifest similarly to the following:

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy can manifest with retinal edema or vitreous and retinal hemorrhages, which also are seen in CRVO.¹³ Macular edema, retinal hemorrhage, and neovascularization on the optic disc or retinal surface also may be seen on funduscopy in proliferative diabetic retinopathy.¹⁴ However, proliferative diabetic retinopathy is often bilateral and gradual in onset in patients with longstanding, uncontrolled diabetes.

Continue to: Hyperviscosity retinopathy

Hyperviscosity retinopathy, which is commonly caused by plasma cell and erythrocyte disorders, also manifests similarly to CRVO. Two noticeable differences include its bilateral presentation and Roth spots, neither of which are commonly seen in CRVO. In addition to visual abnormalities, mucosal bleeding and neurologic abnormalities complete the classic triad of hyperviscosity.¹⁵

Ocular ischemic syndrome is often confused with diabetic retinopathies and CRVO on funduscopy. However, patients with this condition may have narrowed retinal arteries, perifoveal telangiectasias, and periorbital pain—findings rarely seen in CRVO.¹⁶ Because ocular ischemic syndrome is a manifestation of severe carotid artery atherosclerosis, constitutional symptoms also may be present.

The work-up

When CRVO is suspected, an extensive laboratory work-up is necessary to determine the underlying etiology, including: blood pressure, electrocardiogram, complete blood count, random glucose level, electrolytes, lipid panel, plasma protein electrophoresis, thyroid function tests, and inflammatory markers.¹

Additional testing may be required for younger patients who lack vasculopathic risk factors, who have bilateral CRVO, or who have a personal or family history of thrombosis.¹ These patients should be screened for thrombophilia, hypercoagulable disorders, and homocysteinuria.¹

Cases of CRVO have been linked to dehydration as well, with acute vision changes occurring after strenuous exercise, excessive vomiting, or extended periods of fasting.^17-19

Continue to: Treatment may include injections, surgery, or nothing at all

Currently, there are no proven treatments to reopen occluded retinal veins. Thus, management is directed at complications that contribute to vision loss, including macular edema and neovascularization.^20-21 Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are recognized as first-line therapy for macular edema in numerous studies.^22-26 Intravitreal corticosteroids are an alternative treatment for patients with macular edema who do not respond to anti-VEGF therapy; however, monitoring is required as these corticosteroids increase the risk for glaucoma and cataract formation.²⁷ In patients with CRVO with neovascularization, panretinal laser photocoagulation may be used.²⁸

Observation and monitoring for the development of complications, rather than initiation of treatment, is appropriate for patients with CRVO without macular edema or neovascularization, with follow-up intervals and duration dictated by the severity of visual loss and whether the CRVO was ischemic or nonischemic.

Our patient’s diagnosis was confirmed by retinal specialists with optic coherence tomography, gonioscopy, and fluorescein angiography. He underwent an extensive laboratory work-up and hypercoagulation studies to determine the etiology. All results returned within normal limits with the exception of a nonspecific pattern found on serum protein electrophoresis that suggested dehydration.

Observation and monitoring for the development of complications is appropriate for patients with central retinal vein occlusion without macular edema.

Given his negative hypercoagulation studies, normal laboratory values, and new exercise regimen, dehydration was concluded to be the likely etiology. Since his visual acuity was not affected, observation with bimonthly follow-up for 6 months was the management strategy. He was also encouraged to maintain adequate hydration during exercise. His vision returned to normal 2 weeks after the initial event, and he did not have recurrence during the monitoring period.

A previously healthy 37-year-old runner presented to his primary care physician with acute-onset floaters and scotoma in his left eye, which he first noticed less than 24 hours earlier. He denied eye pain, diplopia, headache, fever, chills, slurred speech, weakness, or other focal neurologic deficits. His vital signs were normal.

Despite the acute visual disturbances, visual acuity was 20/20 in both eyes with corrective lenses; pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation; and extraocular movements were intact. On a dilated funduscopic exam, the physician discovered edema of the optic cup, tortuous vasculature, and microhemorrhages in the left eye (FIGURE).

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The patient was given a diagnosis of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). In this condition, a blockage causes the central retinal vein to leak blood and excess fluid into the retina. This fluid can collect in the macula, leading to visual disturbance.

Cases of central retinal vein occlusion have been linked to dehydration as well, with acute vision changes occurring after strenuous exercise.

Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease in the United States and is one of the most common causes of vision loss in the elderly.¹ Advancing age (≥ 70 years), increasing mean arterial blood pressure, and retinal atherosclerotic signs (focal narrowing, arteriovenous nicking, and opacification) are significant predictors of retinal vein occlusion.² Other risk factors include diabetes, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, smoking, obesity, hypercoagulable state, and glaucoma.^3-7 However, retinal vein occlusion may also occur in younger, healthier patients who lack the aforementioned risk factors. In such cases, thrombophilic risk factors should be considered.⁸

CRVO is classified as either ischemic or nonischemic (perfused) based on retinal angiography. More than 80% of CRVO cases are nonischemic,⁹ of which the majority has visual acuity better than 20/400, mild or no pupillary defect, and mild, unilateral visual changes.¹⁰ Nonischemic CRVO can progress to ischemic CRVO, which can result in permanent vision loss. Visual outcome is good in nonischemic CRVO and poor in ischemic CRVO.¹¹ Early detection of poor prognostic features, such as macular edema and neovascularization, is essential for minimizing the risk for permanent damage.¹²

Dilated funduscopic exam of a patient with CRVO may reveal widespread retinal hemorrhages, markedly dilated and tortuous retinal vessels, cotton wool spots, optic disc or macular edema, and/or vitreous hemorrhages.¹⁰

Differential includes varied conditions that can affect vision

CRVO may manifest similarly to the following:

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy can manifest with retinal edema or vitreous and retinal hemorrhages, which also are seen in CRVO.¹³ Macular edema, retinal hemorrhage, and neovascularization on the optic disc or retinal surface also may be seen on funduscopy in proliferative diabetic retinopathy.¹⁴ However, proliferative diabetic retinopathy is often bilateral and gradual in onset in patients with longstanding, uncontrolled diabetes.

Continue to: Hyperviscosity retinopathy

Hyperviscosity retinopathy, which is commonly caused by plasma cell and erythrocyte disorders, also manifests similarly to CRVO. Two noticeable differences include its bilateral presentation and Roth spots, neither of which are commonly seen in CRVO. In addition to visual abnormalities, mucosal bleeding and neurologic abnormalities complete the classic triad of hyperviscosity.¹⁵

Ocular ischemic syndrome is often confused with diabetic retinopathies and CRVO on funduscopy. However, patients with this condition may have narrowed retinal arteries, perifoveal telangiectasias, and periorbital pain—findings rarely seen in CRVO.¹⁶ Because ocular ischemic syndrome is a manifestation of severe carotid artery atherosclerosis, constitutional symptoms also may be present.

The work-up

When CRVO is suspected, an extensive laboratory work-up is necessary to determine the underlying etiology, including: blood pressure, electrocardiogram, complete blood count, random glucose level, electrolytes, lipid panel, plasma protein electrophoresis, thyroid function tests, and inflammatory markers.¹

Additional testing may be required for younger patients who lack vasculopathic risk factors, who have bilateral CRVO, or who have a personal or family history of thrombosis.¹ These patients should be screened for thrombophilia, hypercoagulable disorders, and homocysteinuria.¹

Cases of CRVO have been linked to dehydration as well, with acute vision changes occurring after strenuous exercise, excessive vomiting, or extended periods of fasting.^17-19

Continue to: Treatment may include injections, surgery, or nothing at all

Currently, there are no proven treatments to reopen occluded retinal veins. Thus, management is directed at complications that contribute to vision loss, including macular edema and neovascularization.^20-21 Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are recognized as first-line therapy for macular edema in numerous studies.^22-26 Intravitreal corticosteroids are an alternative treatment for patients with macular edema who do not respond to anti-VEGF therapy; however, monitoring is required as these corticosteroids increase the risk for glaucoma and cataract formation.²⁷ In patients with CRVO with neovascularization, panretinal laser photocoagulation may be used.²⁸

Observation and monitoring for the development of complications, rather than initiation of treatment, is appropriate for patients with CRVO without macular edema or neovascularization, with follow-up intervals and duration dictated by the severity of visual loss and whether the CRVO was ischemic or nonischemic.

Our patient’s diagnosis was confirmed by retinal specialists with optic coherence tomography, gonioscopy, and fluorescein angiography. He underwent an extensive laboratory work-up and hypercoagulation studies to determine the etiology. All results returned within normal limits with the exception of a nonspecific pattern found on serum protein electrophoresis that suggested dehydration.

Observation and monitoring for the development of complications is appropriate for patients with central retinal vein occlusion without macular edema.

Given his negative hypercoagulation studies, normal laboratory values, and new exercise regimen, dehydration was concluded to be the likely etiology. Since his visual acuity was not affected, observation with bimonthly follow-up for 6 months was the management strategy. He was also encouraged to maintain adequate hydration during exercise. His vision returned to normal 2 weeks after the initial event, and he did not have recurrence during the monitoring period.

A previously healthy 37-year-old runner presented to his primary care physician with acute-onset floaters and scotoma in his left eye, which he first noticed less than 24 hours earlier. He denied eye pain, diplopia, headache, fever, chills, slurred speech, weakness, or other focal neurologic deficits. His vital signs were normal.

Despite the acute visual disturbances, visual acuity was 20/20 in both eyes with corrective lenses; pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation; and extraocular movements were intact. On a dilated funduscopic exam, the physician discovered edema of the optic cup, tortuous vasculature, and microhemorrhages in the left eye (FIGURE).

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The patient was given a diagnosis of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). In this condition, a blockage causes the central retinal vein to leak blood and excess fluid into the retina. This fluid can collect in the macula, leading to visual disturbance.

Cases of central retinal vein occlusion have been linked to dehydration as well, with acute vision changes occurring after strenuous exercise.

Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease in the United States and is one of the most common causes of vision loss in the elderly.¹ Advancing age (≥ 70 years), increasing mean arterial blood pressure, and retinal atherosclerotic signs (focal narrowing, arteriovenous nicking, and opacification) are significant predictors of retinal vein occlusion.² Other risk factors include diabetes, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, smoking, obesity, hypercoagulable state, and glaucoma.^3-7 However, retinal vein occlusion may also occur in younger, healthier patients who lack the aforementioned risk factors. In such cases, thrombophilic risk factors should be considered.⁸

CRVO is classified as either ischemic or nonischemic (perfused) based on retinal angiography. More than 80% of CRVO cases are nonischemic,⁹ of which the majority has visual acuity better than 20/400, mild or no pupillary defect, and mild, unilateral visual changes.¹⁰ Nonischemic CRVO can progress to ischemic CRVO, which can result in permanent vision loss. Visual outcome is good in nonischemic CRVO and poor in ischemic CRVO.¹¹ Early detection of poor prognostic features, such as macular edema and neovascularization, is essential for minimizing the risk for permanent damage.¹²

Dilated funduscopic exam of a patient with CRVO may reveal widespread retinal hemorrhages, markedly dilated and tortuous retinal vessels, cotton wool spots, optic disc or macular edema, and/or vitreous hemorrhages.¹⁰

Differential includes varied conditions that can affect vision

CRVO may manifest similarly to the following:

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy can manifest with retinal edema or vitreous and retinal hemorrhages, which also are seen in CRVO.¹³ Macular edema, retinal hemorrhage, and neovascularization on the optic disc or retinal surface also may be seen on funduscopy in proliferative diabetic retinopathy.¹⁴ However, proliferative diabetic retinopathy is often bilateral and gradual in onset in patients with longstanding, uncontrolled diabetes.

Continue to: Hyperviscosity retinopathy

Hyperviscosity retinopathy, which is commonly caused by plasma cell and erythrocyte disorders, also manifests similarly to CRVO. Two noticeable differences include its bilateral presentation and Roth spots, neither of which are commonly seen in CRVO. In addition to visual abnormalities, mucosal bleeding and neurologic abnormalities complete the classic triad of hyperviscosity.¹⁵

Ocular ischemic syndrome is often confused with diabetic retinopathies and CRVO on funduscopy. However, patients with this condition may have narrowed retinal arteries, perifoveal telangiectasias, and periorbital pain—findings rarely seen in CRVO.¹⁶ Because ocular ischemic syndrome is a manifestation of severe carotid artery atherosclerosis, constitutional symptoms also may be present.

The work-up

When CRVO is suspected, an extensive laboratory work-up is necessary to determine the underlying etiology, including: blood pressure, electrocardiogram, complete blood count, random glucose level, electrolytes, lipid panel, plasma protein electrophoresis, thyroid function tests, and inflammatory markers.¹

Additional testing may be required for younger patients who lack vasculopathic risk factors, who have bilateral CRVO, or who have a personal or family history of thrombosis.¹ These patients should be screened for thrombophilia, hypercoagulable disorders, and homocysteinuria.¹

Cases of CRVO have been linked to dehydration as well, with acute vision changes occurring after strenuous exercise, excessive vomiting, or extended periods of fasting.^17-19

Continue to: Treatment may include injections, surgery, or nothing at all

Currently, there are no proven treatments to reopen occluded retinal veins. Thus, management is directed at complications that contribute to vision loss, including macular edema and neovascularization.^20-21 Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are recognized as first-line therapy for macular edema in numerous studies.^22-26 Intravitreal corticosteroids are an alternative treatment for patients with macular edema who do not respond to anti-VEGF therapy; however, monitoring is required as these corticosteroids increase the risk for glaucoma and cataract formation.²⁷ In patients with CRVO with neovascularization, panretinal laser photocoagulation may be used.²⁸

Observation and monitoring for the development of complications, rather than initiation of treatment, is appropriate for patients with CRVO without macular edema or neovascularization, with follow-up intervals and duration dictated by the severity of visual loss and whether the CRVO was ischemic or nonischemic.

Our patient’s diagnosis was confirmed by retinal specialists with optic coherence tomography, gonioscopy, and fluorescein angiography. He underwent an extensive laboratory work-up and hypercoagulation studies to determine the etiology. All results returned within normal limits with the exception of a nonspecific pattern found on serum protein electrophoresis that suggested dehydration.

Observation and monitoring for the development of complications is appropriate for patients with central retinal vein occlusion without macular edema.

Given his negative hypercoagulation studies, normal laboratory values, and new exercise regimen, dehydration was concluded to be the likely etiology. Since his visual acuity was not affected, observation with bimonthly follow-up for 6 months was the management strategy. He was also encouraged to maintain adequate hydration during exercise. His vision returned to normal 2 weeks after the initial event, and he did not have recurrence during the monitoring period.

I’ve always thought it was interesting that the first cases of COVID-19 were reported to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019.¹ How close we came to having COVID-20! On January 31, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared a national public health emergency due to COVID-19, and it’s been in effect ever since.

As COVID and our knowledge about it changed, we rewrote policies dozens of times, and each time the staff retrained in a hurry.

A national public health emergency allows the Department of Health and Human Services to access and designate funds to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease in response to the emergency. The declaration also facilitates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention response to an infectious disease emergency. There are provisions for modifications to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program so clinicians can continue seeing patients and be reimbursed for doing so, even in a situation in which the emergency disrupts usual reporting and documentation requirements. The declaration is essentially a shortcut through the typical bureaucracy that too often gums up the practice of medicine²; it allows for the rapid deployment of funds and personnel to a community affected by an emergency.

Unprecedented change. In the early days, plastic partitions were erected between patients in the hospital, and the scarce supply of N-95 masks was stored in paper bags and baked at low temperatures in ovens overnight.

My hospital enacted its incident command response procedures, just as we did the day our community experienced a mass shooting—except incident command stayed open for months. We had to adapt quickly. My office never closed to in-­person visits; we decided that we took care of too many people who did not have other access to care to make closing practical. My practice partners and I spent a Friday afternoon in March 2020 writing policies. A policy for our residency practice. A policy for how to see patients who might have COVID. A policy for how to cover the residents and faculty when we inevitably got sick. A policy for how to do telehealth visits. By the following Monday, when the office reopened, we had already trained the staff on the new policies, and we were ready to implement them with our patients.

As COVID and our knowledge about it changed, we rewrote those policies dozens of times, and each time the staff retrained in a hurry. We all learned so much so quickly. So as the official public health emergency comes to an end, there are things that I think I will take from it, and things that I wish all of medicine could take from it too.

We adapted as a team. I will never forget the stress of the early days of the emergency, when the patient volume was overwhelming and the death rate was staggering. But shining through those dark times were wonderful moments of connection with the teams with which I worked. I think about the residents whose training shifted suddenly to full-time ­COVID, the nurses who learned new things every weekend for so many months, and everyone who went out on a limb to do the right thing.

We provided care without bureaucracy. I wish medicine could leave the bureaucracy behind along with the emergency. It was so much easier to practice medicine when we knew that the testing and treatment were covered, without “we’ll see” or “it depends on your insurance.” Telehealth is probably here to stay, thanks to widespread uptake by patients and clinicians alike during the pandemic. My wish is that we can make it as easy as possible to use going forward, instead of choosing to return to a more restricted and difficult path.^3,4

Family physicians have much to be proud of. We can look back on the COVID-19 public health emergency as a time when we absorbed a huge amount of rapidly changing information and showed our adaptability to a frightening and uncertain environment. We are not returning to the office, as so many Americans are these days, because we never left the many settings where family physicians practice. We remained at work during the emergency and we took care of our patients.

When the next emergency is declared—whether it be national or local—we will once again be there for our patients.

I’ve always thought it was interesting that the first cases of COVID-19 were reported to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019.¹ How close we came to having COVID-20! On January 31, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared a national public health emergency due to COVID-19, and it’s been in effect ever since.

As COVID and our knowledge about it changed, we rewrote policies dozens of times, and each time the staff retrained in a hurry.

A national public health emergency allows the Department of Health and Human Services to access and designate funds to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease in response to the emergency. The declaration also facilitates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention response to an infectious disease emergency. There are provisions for modifications to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program so clinicians can continue seeing patients and be reimbursed for doing so, even in a situation in which the emergency disrupts usual reporting and documentation requirements. The declaration is essentially a shortcut through the typical bureaucracy that too often gums up the practice of medicine²; it allows for the rapid deployment of funds and personnel to a community affected by an emergency.

Unprecedented change. In the early days, plastic partitions were erected between patients in the hospital, and the scarce supply of N-95 masks was stored in paper bags and baked at low temperatures in ovens overnight.

My hospital enacted its incident command response procedures, just as we did the day our community experienced a mass shooting—except incident command stayed open for months. We had to adapt quickly. My office never closed to in-­person visits; we decided that we took care of too many people who did not have other access to care to make closing practical. My practice partners and I spent a Friday afternoon in March 2020 writing policies. A policy for our residency practice. A policy for how to see patients who might have COVID. A policy for how to cover the residents and faculty when we inevitably got sick. A policy for how to do telehealth visits. By the following Monday, when the office reopened, we had already trained the staff on the new policies, and we were ready to implement them with our patients.

As COVID and our knowledge about it changed, we rewrote those policies dozens of times, and each time the staff retrained in a hurry. We all learned so much so quickly. So as the official public health emergency comes to an end, there are things that I think I will take from it, and things that I wish all of medicine could take from it too.

We adapted as a team. I will never forget the stress of the early days of the emergency, when the patient volume was overwhelming and the death rate was staggering. But shining through those dark times were wonderful moments of connection with the teams with which I worked. I think about the residents whose training shifted suddenly to full-time ­COVID, the nurses who learned new things every weekend for so many months, and everyone who went out on a limb to do the right thing.

We provided care without bureaucracy. I wish medicine could leave the bureaucracy behind along with the emergency. It was so much easier to practice medicine when we knew that the testing and treatment were covered, without “we’ll see” or “it depends on your insurance.” Telehealth is probably here to stay, thanks to widespread uptake by patients and clinicians alike during the pandemic. My wish is that we can make it as easy as possible to use going forward, instead of choosing to return to a more restricted and difficult path.^3,4

Family physicians have much to be proud of. We can look back on the COVID-19 public health emergency as a time when we absorbed a huge amount of rapidly changing information and showed our adaptability to a frightening and uncertain environment. We are not returning to the office, as so many Americans are these days, because we never left the many settings where family physicians practice. We remained at work during the emergency and we took care of our patients.

When the next emergency is declared—whether it be national or local—we will once again be there for our patients.

I’ve always thought it was interesting that the first cases of COVID-19 were reported to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019.¹ How close we came to having COVID-20! On January 31, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared a national public health emergency due to COVID-19, and it’s been in effect ever since.

As COVID and our knowledge about it changed, we rewrote policies dozens of times, and each time the staff retrained in a hurry.

A national public health emergency allows the Department of Health and Human Services to access and designate funds to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease in response to the emergency. The declaration also facilitates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention response to an infectious disease emergency. There are provisions for modifications to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program so clinicians can continue seeing patients and be reimbursed for doing so, even in a situation in which the emergency disrupts usual reporting and documentation requirements. The declaration is essentially a shortcut through the typical bureaucracy that too often gums up the practice of medicine²; it allows for the rapid deployment of funds and personnel to a community affected by an emergency.

Unprecedented change. In the early days, plastic partitions were erected between patients in the hospital, and the scarce supply of N-95 masks was stored in paper bags and baked at low temperatures in ovens overnight.

My hospital enacted its incident command response procedures, just as we did the day our community experienced a mass shooting—except incident command stayed open for months. We had to adapt quickly. My office never closed to in-­person visits; we decided that we took care of too many people who did not have other access to care to make closing practical. My practice partners and I spent a Friday afternoon in March 2020 writing policies. A policy for our residency practice. A policy for how to see patients who might have COVID. A policy for how to cover the residents and faculty when we inevitably got sick. A policy for how to do telehealth visits. By the following Monday, when the office reopened, we had already trained the staff on the new policies, and we were ready to implement them with our patients.

As COVID and our knowledge about it changed, we rewrote those policies dozens of times, and each time the staff retrained in a hurry. We all learned so much so quickly. So as the official public health emergency comes to an end, there are things that I think I will take from it, and things that I wish all of medicine could take from it too.

We adapted as a team. I will never forget the stress of the early days of the emergency, when the patient volume was overwhelming and the death rate was staggering. But shining through those dark times were wonderful moments of connection with the teams with which I worked. I think about the residents whose training shifted suddenly to full-time ­COVID, the nurses who learned new things every weekend for so many months, and everyone who went out on a limb to do the right thing.

We provided care without bureaucracy. I wish medicine could leave the bureaucracy behind along with the emergency. It was so much easier to practice medicine when we knew that the testing and treatment were covered, without “we’ll see” or “it depends on your insurance.” Telehealth is probably here to stay, thanks to widespread uptake by patients and clinicians alike during the pandemic. My wish is that we can make it as easy as possible to use going forward, instead of choosing to return to a more restricted and difficult path.^3,4

Family physicians have much to be proud of. We can look back on the COVID-19 public health emergency as a time when we absorbed a huge amount of rapidly changing information and showed our adaptability to a frightening and uncertain environment. We are not returning to the office, as so many Americans are these days, because we never left the many settings where family physicians practice. We remained at work during the emergency and we took care of our patients.

When the next emergency is declared—whether it be national or local—we will once again be there for our patients.

An elevated serum level of cholesterol has been recognized as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) since the publication of the Framingham Study in 1961.¹ Although clinical outcomes related to ASCVD have improved in recent decades, ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and remains, in the United States, the leading cause of death among most racial and ethnic groups. Much of this persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ­ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.²

Copyright KO Studios

Much of the persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.

The most recent (2019) iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease emphasizes a comprehensive, patient-centered, team-based approach to the management of ASCVD risk factors.² In this article, I review how, first, medication to reduce ASCVD risk should be considered only when a patient’s risk is sufficiently high and, second, shared decision-making and social determinants of health should, in all cases, guide and inform optimal implementation of treatment.²

Estimating risk for ASCVDby ascertaining LDL-C

The Friedewald equation. Traditionally, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is estimated using the Friedewald equation^a applied to a fasting lipid profile. In patients who have a low level of LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), however, the Friedewald equation becomes less accurate; in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 400 mg/dL), estimation of LDL-C is invalid.

The Martin–Hopkins equation offers a validated estimation of LDL-C when the LDL-C value is < 70 mg/dL.³ This equation—in which the fixed factor of 5 used in the Friedewald equation to estimate very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is replaced by an adjustable factor that is based on the patient’s non-HDL-C (ie, TC – HDL-C) and TG values—is preferred by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines in this clinical circumstance.⁴

National Institutes of Health equation. This newer equation provides an accurate estimate of the LDL-C level in patients whose TG value is ≤ 800 mg/dL. The equation has not been fully validated for clinical use, however.⁵

Direct measurement obviates the need for an equation to estimate LDL-C, but the test is not available in all health care settings.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ­ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level. If the TG level is ≥ 400 mg/dL, the test should be administered in the fasting state.⁴

Continue to: Apolipoprotein B

Apolipoprotein B. Alternatively, apolipoprotein B (apoB) can be measured. Because each LDL-C particle contains 1 apoB molecule, the apoB level describes the ­LDL-C level more accurately than a calculation of LDL-C. Many patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome have a relatively low calculated LDL-C (thereby falsely reassuring the testing clinician) but have an elevated apoB level. An apoB level ≥ 130 mg/dL corresponds to an LDL-C level >160 mg/dL.⁴

Calculation of non-HDL-C. Because the nonfasting state does not have a significant impact on a patient’s TC and HDL-C levels, the non-HDL-C level also can be calculated from the results of a nonfasting lipid profile.

Non-HDL-C and apoB are equivalent predictors of ASCVD risk. These 2 assessments might offer better risk estimation than other available tools in patients who have type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.⁶

Applying the estimate of 10-year ASCVD risk

Your recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipid-lowering therapy, should be based on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD. Although multiple validated risk assessment tools are available, ACC/AHA recommends the pooled cohort risk equations (PCE), introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines. The Framingham Heart Study now recommends the ACC/AHA PCE for risk assessment as well.⁷

The PCE, developed from 5 large cohorts, is based on hard atherosclerotic events: nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary artery disease, and stroke. The ACC/AHA PCE is the only risk assessment tool developed using a significant percentage of patients who self-identify as Black.⁸ Alternatives to the ACC/AHA PCE include:

• Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) 10-year ASCVD risk calculator, which incorporates the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score.
• Reynolds Risk Score, which incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement and a family history of premature ASCVD.⁹

Continue to: How much does lifestyle modification actually matter?

The absolute impact of diet and exercise on lipid parameters is relatively modest. No studies have demonstrated a reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes with specific interventions regarding diet or activity.

Diet. Nevertheless, ACC/AHA recommends that at-risk patients follow a dietary pattern that (1) emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and (2) limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meat.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level.

Saturated fat should constitute no more than 5% or 6% of total calories. In controlled-feeding trials,¹⁰ for every 1% of calories from saturated fat that are replaced with carbohydrate or monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, the LDL-C level was found to decline by as much as 1.8 mg/dL. Evidence is insufficient to assert that lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C.¹¹

Activity. Trials of aerobic physical activity, compared with a more sedentary activity pattern, have demonstrated a reduction in the LDL-C level of as much as 6 mg/dL. All adult patients should be counseled to engage in aerobic physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity—averaging ≥ 40 minutes per session, 3 or 4 sessions per week.¹¹

Primary prevention:Stratification by age

40 to 75 years. ACC/AHA recommends that you routinely assess traditional cardiovascular risk factors for these patients and calculate their 10-year risk for ASCVD using the PCE. Statin therapy as primary prevention is indicated for 3 major groups (TABLE 1).⁴ The US Preventive Services Task Force ­(USPSTF) recommends a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 10%, in conjunction with 1 or more additional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking), as the threshold for initiating low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy in this age group.¹²

Continue to: In adults at borderline risk...

In adults at borderline risk (5% to < 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk) or intermediate risk (≥ 7.5% to < 20% 10-year ASCVD risk), consider risk-enhancing factors to better inform your recommendation for preventive interventions. In these 2 groups, the presence of risk-enhancing factors might justify ­moderate-intensity statin therapy (TABLE 2⁴).

If your decision regarding preventive intervention remains uncertain, measuring CAC might further guide your discussion with the patient.⁴ When the CAC score is:

• 0 Agatston units and higher-risk conditions (eg, diabetes, family history of premature coronary artery disease, smoking) are absent, statin therapy can be withheld; reassess ASCVD risk in 5 to 10 years.
• 1-99 Agatston units, statin therapy can be started, especially for patients ≥ 55 years of age.
• ≥ 100 Agatston units or ≥ 75th percentile, statin therapy is indicated for all patients, regardless of additional risk factors.⁴

Because statins promote progression from unstable, inflammatory atherosclerotic plaque to more stable, calcified plaque, CAC scoring is not valid in patients already on statin therapy.¹³

In primary prevention, patients who have been classified as having low or intermediate risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have an annual all-cause mortality < 1%, regardless of age and gender. Patients classified as being at high risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have a significantly lower annual mortality than low- or intermediate-risk patients with a CAC score > 0 Agatston units.¹⁴

20 to 39 years. Focus on evaluation of lifetime ASCVD risk, rather than short-term (10-year) risk. Lifestyle modification is the primary intervention for younger patients; for those with moderate hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, 160-189 mg/dL) and a family history of premature ASCVD, however, consider statin therapy. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, lifetime ASCVD risk is markedly increased, and high-intensity statin therapy is recommended, regardless of age. In this group, reassess ASCVD risk factors every 4 to 6 years.⁴

Continue to: > 75 years, without ASCVD

> 75 years, without ASCVD. In this group, the ­benefit of statin therapy is less clear and might be lessened by an increased potential for adverse effects. A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people ages > 75 years had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, which is comparable to the risk reduction seen in people ages 40 to 75 years.¹⁵

A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people > 75 years of age had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C.

With increasing age, however, the relative reduction in major coronary events with statin therapy decreased,¹⁵ although other trials have not demonstrated age heterogeneity.¹⁶ Because people > 75 years of age have a significantly higher ASCVD event rate, a comparable relative rate reduction with statin therapy results in a larger absolute rate reduction (ARR) and, therefore, a smaller number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an event, compared to the NNT in younger people.

Secondary prevention

ACC/AHA guidelines define clinical ASCVD as a history of:

• acute coronary syndrome
• myocardial infarction
• coronary or other arterial revascularization
• cerebrovascular event
• symptomatic peripheral artery disease, including aortic aneurysm.

High-intensity statin therapy is indicated for all patients ≤ 75 years who have clinical ­ASCVD. In patients > 75 years, consider a taper to moderate-intensity statin therapy. An upper age limit for seeing benefit from statin therapy in secondary prevention has not been identified.⁴

Base a recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipidlowering therapy, on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD.

In high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, ezetimibe (discussed in the next section) can be added. In very-high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy plus ezetimibe, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/­kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (also discussed next) can be added. Always precede initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor with a discussion of the net benefit, safety, and cost with the patient.⁴

Continue to: Options for lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy

Statins (formally, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) offer the most predictable reduction in ASCVD risk of any lipid-lowering therapy. The evidence report that accompanied the 2016 USPSTF guidelines on statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) stated that low- or moderate-dosage statin therapy is associated with approximately a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD events and CVD deaths and a 10% to 15% RRR in all-cause mortality.¹⁷

High-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by ≥ 50%. Moderate-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by 30% to 49% (TABLE 3).⁴

Statins are not without risk: A 2016 report¹⁸ estimated that treating 10,000 patients with a statin for 5 years would cause 1 case of rhabdomyolysis, 5 cases of myopathy, 75 new cases of diabetes, and 7 cases of hemorrhagic stroke. The same treatment would, however, avert approximately 1000 CVD events among patients with preexisting disease and approximately 500 CVD events among patients at elevated risk but without preexisting disease.¹⁸

Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol-­absorption inhibitor, lowers LDL-C by 13% to 20% and typically is well tolerated. The use of ezetimibe in ASCVD risk reduction is supported by a single randomized controlled trial of more than 18,000 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 6 years (NNT = 50), compared to simvastatin alone.¹⁹ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with clinical ASCVD who do not reach their goal LDL reduction with a statin alone. Ezetimibe also can be considered a statin alternative in patients who are statin intolerant.⁴

PCSK9 inhibitors. When added to statin therapy, evolocumab and alirocumab—monoclonal antibodies that inhibit PCSK9—offer an incremental decrease in LDL-C of approximately 60%.^20-22 In a meta-analysis of 35 trials evaluating the incremental benefit of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (ARR = 1.3%; NNT = 77), stroke (ARR = 0.4%; NNT = 250), and coronary revascularization (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63) was reported. No significant difference was observed in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.^21,23

Continue to: Inclisiran

Inclisiran, an injectable small-­interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, provides an incremental decrease in LDL-C of > 50% in patients already receiving statin therapy. Meta-analysis of 3 small cardiovascular outcomes trials revealed no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality with inclisiran compared to placebo. Larger outcomes trials are underway and might offer additional insight into this agent’s role in ASCVD risk management.²⁴

Omega-3 fatty acids. Multiple trials have demonstrated that adding omega-3 fatty acids to usual lipid-lowering therapy does not offer a consistent reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes, despite providing a significant reduction in TG levels. In a high-risk population with persistently elevated TG despite statin therapy, icosapent ethyl, a purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 25% over a median 4.9 years (ARR = 4.8%; NNT = 21), and cardiovascular death by 20% (ARR = 0.9%; NNT = 111), compared with a mineral oil placebo.²⁵ Subsequent trials, using a corn oil placebo, failed to duplicate these data²⁶—raising concern that the mineral oil comparator might have altered results of the eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester study.^27,28

Bempedoic acid is a small-molecule ­inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase that increases LDL uptake by the liver. Pooled data from studies of bempedoic acid show, on average, a 15% reduction in TC, a 23% reduction in LDL-C, and a 6% increase in HDL-C, without a significant change in TG.²⁹ In statin-­intolerant patients, bempedoic acid reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 13% over a median 40 months (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63), with no significant reduction in cardiovascular death.³⁰

Niacin. Two large trials failed to demonstrate improvement in major cardiovascular events or other clinical benefit when niacin is added to moderate-intensity statin therapy, despite a significant increase in the HDL-C level (on average, 6 mg/dL) and a decrease in the LDL-C level (10-12 mg/dL) and TG (42 mg/dL).^31,32

Fenofibrate lowers TG and increases HDL-C but does not consistently improve cardiovascular outcomes.³³ In a trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent dyslipidemia (serum TG > 204 mg/dL; ­HDL-C < 34 mg/dL) despite statin therapy, adding fenofibrate reduced CVD outcomes by 4.9%—although this absolute difference did not reach statistical significance.³⁴

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.⁴

Follow-up to assess progress toward goals

At-risk patients should follow a dietary pattern that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and limits sweets, sugarsweetened beverages, and red meat.

Recheck the lipid profile 4 to 12 weeks after starting lipid-lowering therapy to verify adherence to medication and assess response. The primary goal is the percentage reduction in LDL-C based on ASCVD risk. An additional goal for very-high-risk patients is an LDL-C value ≤ 70 mg/dL. If the reduction in LDL-C is less than desired and adherence is assured, consider titrating the statin dosage or augmenting statin therapy with a nonstatin drug (eg, ezetimibe), or both.⁴

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, MAEd, MBA, East Carolina University, Family Medicine Center, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

An elevated serum level of cholesterol has been recognized as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) since the publication of the Framingham Study in 1961.¹ Although clinical outcomes related to ASCVD have improved in recent decades, ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and remains, in the United States, the leading cause of death among most racial and ethnic groups. Much of this persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ­ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.²

Copyright KO Studios

Much of the persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.

The most recent (2019) iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease emphasizes a comprehensive, patient-centered, team-based approach to the management of ASCVD risk factors.² In this article, I review how, first, medication to reduce ASCVD risk should be considered only when a patient’s risk is sufficiently high and, second, shared decision-making and social determinants of health should, in all cases, guide and inform optimal implementation of treatment.²

Estimating risk for ASCVDby ascertaining LDL-C

The Friedewald equation. Traditionally, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is estimated using the Friedewald equation^a applied to a fasting lipid profile. In patients who have a low level of LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), however, the Friedewald equation becomes less accurate; in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 400 mg/dL), estimation of LDL-C is invalid.

The Martin–Hopkins equation offers a validated estimation of LDL-C when the LDL-C value is < 70 mg/dL.³ This equation—in which the fixed factor of 5 used in the Friedewald equation to estimate very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is replaced by an adjustable factor that is based on the patient’s non-HDL-C (ie, TC – HDL-C) and TG values—is preferred by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines in this clinical circumstance.⁴

National Institutes of Health equation. This newer equation provides an accurate estimate of the LDL-C level in patients whose TG value is ≤ 800 mg/dL. The equation has not been fully validated for clinical use, however.⁵

Direct measurement obviates the need for an equation to estimate LDL-C, but the test is not available in all health care settings.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ­ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level. If the TG level is ≥ 400 mg/dL, the test should be administered in the fasting state.⁴

Continue to: Apolipoprotein B

Apolipoprotein B. Alternatively, apolipoprotein B (apoB) can be measured. Because each LDL-C particle contains 1 apoB molecule, the apoB level describes the ­LDL-C level more accurately than a calculation of LDL-C. Many patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome have a relatively low calculated LDL-C (thereby falsely reassuring the testing clinician) but have an elevated apoB level. An apoB level ≥ 130 mg/dL corresponds to an LDL-C level >160 mg/dL.⁴

Calculation of non-HDL-C. Because the nonfasting state does not have a significant impact on a patient’s TC and HDL-C levels, the non-HDL-C level also can be calculated from the results of a nonfasting lipid profile.

Non-HDL-C and apoB are equivalent predictors of ASCVD risk. These 2 assessments might offer better risk estimation than other available tools in patients who have type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.⁶

Applying the estimate of 10-year ASCVD risk

Your recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipid-lowering therapy, should be based on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD. Although multiple validated risk assessment tools are available, ACC/AHA recommends the pooled cohort risk equations (PCE), introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines. The Framingham Heart Study now recommends the ACC/AHA PCE for risk assessment as well.⁷

The PCE, developed from 5 large cohorts, is based on hard atherosclerotic events: nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary artery disease, and stroke. The ACC/AHA PCE is the only risk assessment tool developed using a significant percentage of patients who self-identify as Black.⁸ Alternatives to the ACC/AHA PCE include:

• Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) 10-year ASCVD risk calculator, which incorporates the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score.
• Reynolds Risk Score, which incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement and a family history of premature ASCVD.⁹

Continue to: How much does lifestyle modification actually matter?

The absolute impact of diet and exercise on lipid parameters is relatively modest. No studies have demonstrated a reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes with specific interventions regarding diet or activity.

Diet. Nevertheless, ACC/AHA recommends that at-risk patients follow a dietary pattern that (1) emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and (2) limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meat.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level.

Saturated fat should constitute no more than 5% or 6% of total calories. In controlled-feeding trials,¹⁰ for every 1% of calories from saturated fat that are replaced with carbohydrate or monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, the LDL-C level was found to decline by as much as 1.8 mg/dL. Evidence is insufficient to assert that lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C.¹¹

Activity. Trials of aerobic physical activity, compared with a more sedentary activity pattern, have demonstrated a reduction in the LDL-C level of as much as 6 mg/dL. All adult patients should be counseled to engage in aerobic physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity—averaging ≥ 40 minutes per session, 3 or 4 sessions per week.¹¹

Primary prevention:Stratification by age

40 to 75 years. ACC/AHA recommends that you routinely assess traditional cardiovascular risk factors for these patients and calculate their 10-year risk for ASCVD using the PCE. Statin therapy as primary prevention is indicated for 3 major groups (TABLE 1).⁴ The US Preventive Services Task Force ­(USPSTF) recommends a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 10%, in conjunction with 1 or more additional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking), as the threshold for initiating low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy in this age group.¹²

Continue to: In adults at borderline risk...

In adults at borderline risk (5% to < 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk) or intermediate risk (≥ 7.5% to < 20% 10-year ASCVD risk), consider risk-enhancing factors to better inform your recommendation for preventive interventions. In these 2 groups, the presence of risk-enhancing factors might justify ­moderate-intensity statin therapy (TABLE 2⁴).

If your decision regarding preventive intervention remains uncertain, measuring CAC might further guide your discussion with the patient.⁴ When the CAC score is:

• 0 Agatston units and higher-risk conditions (eg, diabetes, family history of premature coronary artery disease, smoking) are absent, statin therapy can be withheld; reassess ASCVD risk in 5 to 10 years.
• 1-99 Agatston units, statin therapy can be started, especially for patients ≥ 55 years of age.
• ≥ 100 Agatston units or ≥ 75th percentile, statin therapy is indicated for all patients, regardless of additional risk factors.⁴

Because statins promote progression from unstable, inflammatory atherosclerotic plaque to more stable, calcified plaque, CAC scoring is not valid in patients already on statin therapy.¹³

In primary prevention, patients who have been classified as having low or intermediate risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have an annual all-cause mortality < 1%, regardless of age and gender. Patients classified as being at high risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have a significantly lower annual mortality than low- or intermediate-risk patients with a CAC score > 0 Agatston units.¹⁴

20 to 39 years. Focus on evaluation of lifetime ASCVD risk, rather than short-term (10-year) risk. Lifestyle modification is the primary intervention for younger patients; for those with moderate hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, 160-189 mg/dL) and a family history of premature ASCVD, however, consider statin therapy. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, lifetime ASCVD risk is markedly increased, and high-intensity statin therapy is recommended, regardless of age. In this group, reassess ASCVD risk factors every 4 to 6 years.⁴

Continue to: > 75 years, without ASCVD

> 75 years, without ASCVD. In this group, the ­benefit of statin therapy is less clear and might be lessened by an increased potential for adverse effects. A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people ages > 75 years had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, which is comparable to the risk reduction seen in people ages 40 to 75 years.¹⁵

A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people > 75 years of age had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C.

With increasing age, however, the relative reduction in major coronary events with statin therapy decreased,¹⁵ although other trials have not demonstrated age heterogeneity.¹⁶ Because people > 75 years of age have a significantly higher ASCVD event rate, a comparable relative rate reduction with statin therapy results in a larger absolute rate reduction (ARR) and, therefore, a smaller number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an event, compared to the NNT in younger people.

Secondary prevention

ACC/AHA guidelines define clinical ASCVD as a history of:

• acute coronary syndrome
• myocardial infarction
• coronary or other arterial revascularization
• cerebrovascular event
• symptomatic peripheral artery disease, including aortic aneurysm.

High-intensity statin therapy is indicated for all patients ≤ 75 years who have clinical ­ASCVD. In patients > 75 years, consider a taper to moderate-intensity statin therapy. An upper age limit for seeing benefit from statin therapy in secondary prevention has not been identified.⁴

Base a recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipidlowering therapy, on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD.

In high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, ezetimibe (discussed in the next section) can be added. In very-high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy plus ezetimibe, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/­kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (also discussed next) can be added. Always precede initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor with a discussion of the net benefit, safety, and cost with the patient.⁴

Continue to: Options for lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy

Statins (formally, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) offer the most predictable reduction in ASCVD risk of any lipid-lowering therapy. The evidence report that accompanied the 2016 USPSTF guidelines on statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) stated that low- or moderate-dosage statin therapy is associated with approximately a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD events and CVD deaths and a 10% to 15% RRR in all-cause mortality.¹⁷

High-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by ≥ 50%. Moderate-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by 30% to 49% (TABLE 3).⁴

Statins are not without risk: A 2016 report¹⁸ estimated that treating 10,000 patients with a statin for 5 years would cause 1 case of rhabdomyolysis, 5 cases of myopathy, 75 new cases of diabetes, and 7 cases of hemorrhagic stroke. The same treatment would, however, avert approximately 1000 CVD events among patients with preexisting disease and approximately 500 CVD events among patients at elevated risk but without preexisting disease.¹⁸

Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol-­absorption inhibitor, lowers LDL-C by 13% to 20% and typically is well tolerated. The use of ezetimibe in ASCVD risk reduction is supported by a single randomized controlled trial of more than 18,000 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 6 years (NNT = 50), compared to simvastatin alone.¹⁹ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with clinical ASCVD who do not reach their goal LDL reduction with a statin alone. Ezetimibe also can be considered a statin alternative in patients who are statin intolerant.⁴

PCSK9 inhibitors. When added to statin therapy, evolocumab and alirocumab—monoclonal antibodies that inhibit PCSK9—offer an incremental decrease in LDL-C of approximately 60%.^20-22 In a meta-analysis of 35 trials evaluating the incremental benefit of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (ARR = 1.3%; NNT = 77), stroke (ARR = 0.4%; NNT = 250), and coronary revascularization (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63) was reported. No significant difference was observed in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.^21,23

Continue to: Inclisiran

Inclisiran, an injectable small-­interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, provides an incremental decrease in LDL-C of > 50% in patients already receiving statin therapy. Meta-analysis of 3 small cardiovascular outcomes trials revealed no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality with inclisiran compared to placebo. Larger outcomes trials are underway and might offer additional insight into this agent’s role in ASCVD risk management.²⁴

Omega-3 fatty acids. Multiple trials have demonstrated that adding omega-3 fatty acids to usual lipid-lowering therapy does not offer a consistent reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes, despite providing a significant reduction in TG levels. In a high-risk population with persistently elevated TG despite statin therapy, icosapent ethyl, a purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 25% over a median 4.9 years (ARR = 4.8%; NNT = 21), and cardiovascular death by 20% (ARR = 0.9%; NNT = 111), compared with a mineral oil placebo.²⁵ Subsequent trials, using a corn oil placebo, failed to duplicate these data²⁶—raising concern that the mineral oil comparator might have altered results of the eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester study.^27,28

Bempedoic acid is a small-molecule ­inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase that increases LDL uptake by the liver. Pooled data from studies of bempedoic acid show, on average, a 15% reduction in TC, a 23% reduction in LDL-C, and a 6% increase in HDL-C, without a significant change in TG.²⁹ In statin-­intolerant patients, bempedoic acid reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 13% over a median 40 months (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63), with no significant reduction in cardiovascular death.³⁰

Niacin. Two large trials failed to demonstrate improvement in major cardiovascular events or other clinical benefit when niacin is added to moderate-intensity statin therapy, despite a significant increase in the HDL-C level (on average, 6 mg/dL) and a decrease in the LDL-C level (10-12 mg/dL) and TG (42 mg/dL).^31,32

Fenofibrate lowers TG and increases HDL-C but does not consistently improve cardiovascular outcomes.³³ In a trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent dyslipidemia (serum TG > 204 mg/dL; ­HDL-C < 34 mg/dL) despite statin therapy, adding fenofibrate reduced CVD outcomes by 4.9%—although this absolute difference did not reach statistical significance.³⁴

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.⁴

Follow-up to assess progress toward goals

At-risk patients should follow a dietary pattern that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and limits sweets, sugarsweetened beverages, and red meat.

Recheck the lipid profile 4 to 12 weeks after starting lipid-lowering therapy to verify adherence to medication and assess response. The primary goal is the percentage reduction in LDL-C based on ASCVD risk. An additional goal for very-high-risk patients is an LDL-C value ≤ 70 mg/dL. If the reduction in LDL-C is less than desired and adherence is assured, consider titrating the statin dosage or augmenting statin therapy with a nonstatin drug (eg, ezetimibe), or both.⁴

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, MAEd, MBA, East Carolina University, Family Medicine Center, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

An elevated serum level of cholesterol has been recognized as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) since the publication of the Framingham Study in 1961.¹ Although clinical outcomes related to ASCVD have improved in recent decades, ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and remains, in the United States, the leading cause of death among most racial and ethnic groups. Much of this persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ­ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.²

Copyright KO Studios

Much of the persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.

The most recent (2019) iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease emphasizes a comprehensive, patient-centered, team-based approach to the management of ASCVD risk factors.² In this article, I review how, first, medication to reduce ASCVD risk should be considered only when a patient’s risk is sufficiently high and, second, shared decision-making and social determinants of health should, in all cases, guide and inform optimal implementation of treatment.²

Estimating risk for ASCVDby ascertaining LDL-C

The Friedewald equation. Traditionally, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is estimated using the Friedewald equation^a applied to a fasting lipid profile. In patients who have a low level of LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), however, the Friedewald equation becomes less accurate; in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 400 mg/dL), estimation of LDL-C is invalid.

The Martin–Hopkins equation offers a validated estimation of LDL-C when the LDL-C value is < 70 mg/dL.³ This equation—in which the fixed factor of 5 used in the Friedewald equation to estimate very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is replaced by an adjustable factor that is based on the patient’s non-HDL-C (ie, TC – HDL-C) and TG values—is preferred by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines in this clinical circumstance.⁴

National Institutes of Health equation. This newer equation provides an accurate estimate of the LDL-C level in patients whose TG value is ≤ 800 mg/dL. The equation has not been fully validated for clinical use, however.⁵

Direct measurement obviates the need for an equation to estimate LDL-C, but the test is not available in all health care settings.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ­ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level. If the TG level is ≥ 400 mg/dL, the test should be administered in the fasting state.⁴

Continue to: Apolipoprotein B

Apolipoprotein B. Alternatively, apolipoprotein B (apoB) can be measured. Because each LDL-C particle contains 1 apoB molecule, the apoB level describes the ­LDL-C level more accurately than a calculation of LDL-C. Many patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome have a relatively low calculated LDL-C (thereby falsely reassuring the testing clinician) but have an elevated apoB level. An apoB level ≥ 130 mg/dL corresponds to an LDL-C level >160 mg/dL.⁴

Calculation of non-HDL-C. Because the nonfasting state does not have a significant impact on a patient’s TC and HDL-C levels, the non-HDL-C level also can be calculated from the results of a nonfasting lipid profile.

Non-HDL-C and apoB are equivalent predictors of ASCVD risk. These 2 assessments might offer better risk estimation than other available tools in patients who have type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.⁶

Applying the estimate of 10-year ASCVD risk

Your recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipid-lowering therapy, should be based on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD. Although multiple validated risk assessment tools are available, ACC/AHA recommends the pooled cohort risk equations (PCE), introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines. The Framingham Heart Study now recommends the ACC/AHA PCE for risk assessment as well.⁷

The PCE, developed from 5 large cohorts, is based on hard atherosclerotic events: nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary artery disease, and stroke. The ACC/AHA PCE is the only risk assessment tool developed using a significant percentage of patients who self-identify as Black.⁸ Alternatives to the ACC/AHA PCE include:

• Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) 10-year ASCVD risk calculator, which incorporates the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score.
• Reynolds Risk Score, which incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement and a family history of premature ASCVD.⁹

Continue to: How much does lifestyle modification actually matter?

The absolute impact of diet and exercise on lipid parameters is relatively modest. No studies have demonstrated a reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes with specific interventions regarding diet or activity.

Diet. Nevertheless, ACC/AHA recommends that at-risk patients follow a dietary pattern that (1) emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and (2) limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meat.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level.

Saturated fat should constitute no more than 5% or 6% of total calories. In controlled-feeding trials,¹⁰ for every 1% of calories from saturated fat that are replaced with carbohydrate or monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, the LDL-C level was found to decline by as much as 1.8 mg/dL. Evidence is insufficient to assert that lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C.¹¹

Activity. Trials of aerobic physical activity, compared with a more sedentary activity pattern, have demonstrated a reduction in the LDL-C level of as much as 6 mg/dL. All adult patients should be counseled to engage in aerobic physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity—averaging ≥ 40 minutes per session, 3 or 4 sessions per week.¹¹

Primary prevention:Stratification by age

40 to 75 years. ACC/AHA recommends that you routinely assess traditional cardiovascular risk factors for these patients and calculate their 10-year risk for ASCVD using the PCE. Statin therapy as primary prevention is indicated for 3 major groups (TABLE 1).⁴ The US Preventive Services Task Force ­(USPSTF) recommends a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 10%, in conjunction with 1 or more additional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking), as the threshold for initiating low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy in this age group.¹²

Continue to: In adults at borderline risk...

In adults at borderline risk (5% to < 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk) or intermediate risk (≥ 7.5% to < 20% 10-year ASCVD risk), consider risk-enhancing factors to better inform your recommendation for preventive interventions. In these 2 groups, the presence of risk-enhancing factors might justify ­moderate-intensity statin therapy (TABLE 2⁴).

If your decision regarding preventive intervention remains uncertain, measuring CAC might further guide your discussion with the patient.⁴ When the CAC score is:

• 0 Agatston units and higher-risk conditions (eg, diabetes, family history of premature coronary artery disease, smoking) are absent, statin therapy can be withheld; reassess ASCVD risk in 5 to 10 years.
• 1-99 Agatston units, statin therapy can be started, especially for patients ≥ 55 years of age.
• ≥ 100 Agatston units or ≥ 75th percentile, statin therapy is indicated for all patients, regardless of additional risk factors.⁴

Because statins promote progression from unstable, inflammatory atherosclerotic plaque to more stable, calcified plaque, CAC scoring is not valid in patients already on statin therapy.¹³

In primary prevention, patients who have been classified as having low or intermediate risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have an annual all-cause mortality < 1%, regardless of age and gender. Patients classified as being at high risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have a significantly lower annual mortality than low- or intermediate-risk patients with a CAC score > 0 Agatston units.¹⁴

20 to 39 years. Focus on evaluation of lifetime ASCVD risk, rather than short-term (10-year) risk. Lifestyle modification is the primary intervention for younger patients; for those with moderate hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, 160-189 mg/dL) and a family history of premature ASCVD, however, consider statin therapy. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, lifetime ASCVD risk is markedly increased, and high-intensity statin therapy is recommended, regardless of age. In this group, reassess ASCVD risk factors every 4 to 6 years.⁴

Continue to: > 75 years, without ASCVD

> 75 years, without ASCVD. In this group, the ­benefit of statin therapy is less clear and might be lessened by an increased potential for adverse effects. A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people ages > 75 years had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, which is comparable to the risk reduction seen in people ages 40 to 75 years.¹⁵

A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people > 75 years of age had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C.

With increasing age, however, the relative reduction in major coronary events with statin therapy decreased,¹⁵ although other trials have not demonstrated age heterogeneity.¹⁶ Because people > 75 years of age have a significantly higher ASCVD event rate, a comparable relative rate reduction with statin therapy results in a larger absolute rate reduction (ARR) and, therefore, a smaller number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an event, compared to the NNT in younger people.

Secondary prevention

ACC/AHA guidelines define clinical ASCVD as a history of:

• acute coronary syndrome
• myocardial infarction
• coronary or other arterial revascularization
• cerebrovascular event
• symptomatic peripheral artery disease, including aortic aneurysm.

High-intensity statin therapy is indicated for all patients ≤ 75 years who have clinical ­ASCVD. In patients > 75 years, consider a taper to moderate-intensity statin therapy. An upper age limit for seeing benefit from statin therapy in secondary prevention has not been identified.⁴

Base a recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipidlowering therapy, on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD.

In high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, ezetimibe (discussed in the next section) can be added. In very-high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy plus ezetimibe, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/­kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (also discussed next) can be added. Always precede initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor with a discussion of the net benefit, safety, and cost with the patient.⁴

Continue to: Options for lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy

Statins (formally, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) offer the most predictable reduction in ASCVD risk of any lipid-lowering therapy. The evidence report that accompanied the 2016 USPSTF guidelines on statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) stated that low- or moderate-dosage statin therapy is associated with approximately a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD events and CVD deaths and a 10% to 15% RRR in all-cause mortality.¹⁷

High-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by ≥ 50%. Moderate-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by 30% to 49% (TABLE 3).⁴

Statins are not without risk: A 2016 report¹⁸ estimated that treating 10,000 patients with a statin for 5 years would cause 1 case of rhabdomyolysis, 5 cases of myopathy, 75 new cases of diabetes, and 7 cases of hemorrhagic stroke. The same treatment would, however, avert approximately 1000 CVD events among patients with preexisting disease and approximately 500 CVD events among patients at elevated risk but without preexisting disease.¹⁸

Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol-­absorption inhibitor, lowers LDL-C by 13% to 20% and typically is well tolerated. The use of ezetimibe in ASCVD risk reduction is supported by a single randomized controlled trial of more than 18,000 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 6 years (NNT = 50), compared to simvastatin alone.¹⁹ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with clinical ASCVD who do not reach their goal LDL reduction with a statin alone. Ezetimibe also can be considered a statin alternative in patients who are statin intolerant.⁴

PCSK9 inhibitors. When added to statin therapy, evolocumab and alirocumab—monoclonal antibodies that inhibit PCSK9—offer an incremental decrease in LDL-C of approximately 60%.^20-22 In a meta-analysis of 35 trials evaluating the incremental benefit of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (ARR = 1.3%; NNT = 77), stroke (ARR = 0.4%; NNT = 250), and coronary revascularization (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63) was reported. No significant difference was observed in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.^21,23

Continue to: Inclisiran

Inclisiran, an injectable small-­interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, provides an incremental decrease in LDL-C of > 50% in patients already receiving statin therapy. Meta-analysis of 3 small cardiovascular outcomes trials revealed no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality with inclisiran compared to placebo. Larger outcomes trials are underway and might offer additional insight into this agent’s role in ASCVD risk management.²⁴

Omega-3 fatty acids. Multiple trials have demonstrated that adding omega-3 fatty acids to usual lipid-lowering therapy does not offer a consistent reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes, despite providing a significant reduction in TG levels. In a high-risk population with persistently elevated TG despite statin therapy, icosapent ethyl, a purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 25% over a median 4.9 years (ARR = 4.8%; NNT = 21), and cardiovascular death by 20% (ARR = 0.9%; NNT = 111), compared with a mineral oil placebo.²⁵ Subsequent trials, using a corn oil placebo, failed to duplicate these data²⁶—raising concern that the mineral oil comparator might have altered results of the eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester study.^27,28

Bempedoic acid is a small-molecule ­inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase that increases LDL uptake by the liver. Pooled data from studies of bempedoic acid show, on average, a 15% reduction in TC, a 23% reduction in LDL-C, and a 6% increase in HDL-C, without a significant change in TG.²⁹ In statin-­intolerant patients, bempedoic acid reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 13% over a median 40 months (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63), with no significant reduction in cardiovascular death.³⁰

Niacin. Two large trials failed to demonstrate improvement in major cardiovascular events or other clinical benefit when niacin is added to moderate-intensity statin therapy, despite a significant increase in the HDL-C level (on average, 6 mg/dL) and a decrease in the LDL-C level (10-12 mg/dL) and TG (42 mg/dL).^31,32

Fenofibrate lowers TG and increases HDL-C but does not consistently improve cardiovascular outcomes.³³ In a trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent dyslipidemia (serum TG > 204 mg/dL; ­HDL-C < 34 mg/dL) despite statin therapy, adding fenofibrate reduced CVD outcomes by 4.9%—although this absolute difference did not reach statistical significance.³⁴

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.⁴

Follow-up to assess progress toward goals

At-risk patients should follow a dietary pattern that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and limits sweets, sugarsweetened beverages, and red meat.

Recheck the lipid profile 4 to 12 weeks after starting lipid-lowering therapy to verify adherence to medication and assess response. The primary goal is the percentage reduction in LDL-C based on ASCVD risk. An additional goal for very-high-risk patients is an LDL-C value ≤ 70 mg/dL. If the reduction in LDL-C is less than desired and adherence is assured, consider titrating the statin dosage or augmenting statin therapy with a nonstatin drug (eg, ezetimibe), or both.⁴

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, MAEd, MBA, East Carolina University, Family Medicine Center, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

Approximately 10,000 suicide deaths are recorded in Brazil every year. The suicide risk is highest among patients with depressive disorders, particularly women (> 18% vs. 11% for men).

There are countless people who work to prevent suicide, and the challenges they face are many. But now, on the horizon, there are new tools that could prove invaluable to their efforts – tools such as biomarkers. In a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, researchers from the Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Brazil, reported an association of glutathione (GSH) with the degree of suicide risk in women at 18 months postpartum. Specifically, they found that reduced serum GSH levels were significantly lower for those with moderate to high suicide risk than for those without suicide risk. Their findings suggest that GSH may be a potential biomarker or etiologic factor among women at risk for suicide, with therapeutic implications.

This was a case-control study nested within a cohort study. From this cohort, 45 women were selected at 18 months postpartum. Thirty of them had mood disorders, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. The other 15 participants, none of whom had a mood disorder, made up the control group.

Depression and the risk for suicide were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus (MINI-Plus 5.0.0 Brazilian version), module A and module C, respectively. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum levels of the following oxidative stress biomarkers: reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and GSH.

The prevalence of suicide risk observed in the women at 18 months postpartum was 24.4%. The prevalence of suicide risk in the mood disorder group was 36.7%.

In addition, the statistical analysis found that women with moderate to high suicide risk had cerebral redox imbalance, resulting in a decrease in blood GSH levels.

The study team was led by neuroscientist Adriano Martimbianco de Assis, PhD, the coordinator of UCPel’s postgraduate program in health and behavior. He said that the correlation identified between GSH serum levels and suicide risk gives rise to two possible applications: using GSH as a biomarker for suicide risk and using GSH therapeutically.

Regarding the former application, Dr. Martimbianco de Assis explained that additional studies are needed to take a step forward. “Although we believe that most of the GSH came from the brain – given that it’s the brain’s main antioxidant – as we analyze blood samples, we’re not yet able to rule out the possibility that it came from other organs,” he said in an interview. So, confirming that hypothesis will require studies that involve imaging brain tissue. According to Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, once there is confirmation, it will be possible to move to using the antioxidant as a biomarker for suicide risk.

He also shared his views about the second application: using GSH therapeutically. “We already know that there are very simple alternatives that can influence GSH levels, [and they] mostly have to do with exercise and [improving the quality of] the food one eats. But there are also drugs: for example, N-acetyl cysteine, which is a precursor of GSH.” Adopting strategies to increase the levels of this antioxidant in the body should reverse the imbalance identified in the study and, as a result, may lead to lowering the risk for suicide. But, he reiterated, “getting to a place where GSH [can be used] in clinical practice hinges on getting that confirmation that it did, in fact, come from the brain. Recall that our study found lower levels of GSH in women at risk for suicide.”

Even though the study evaluated postpartum women, it’s possible that the results can be extrapolated to other populations, said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis. This is because when the data were collected, 18 months had already passed since giving birth. The participants’ physiological condition at that point was more similar to the one prior to becoming pregnant.

The UCPel researchers continue to follow the cohort. “We intend to continue monitoring GSH levels at other times. Forty-eight months have now passed since the women gave birth, and the idea is to continue studying [the patients involved in the study],” said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, adding that the team also intends to analyze brain tissue from in vitro studies using cell cultures.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately 10,000 suicide deaths are recorded in Brazil every year. The suicide risk is highest among patients with depressive disorders, particularly women (> 18% vs. 11% for men).

There are countless people who work to prevent suicide, and the challenges they face are many. But now, on the horizon, there are new tools that could prove invaluable to their efforts – tools such as biomarkers. In a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, researchers from the Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Brazil, reported an association of glutathione (GSH) with the degree of suicide risk in women at 18 months postpartum. Specifically, they found that reduced serum GSH levels were significantly lower for those with moderate to high suicide risk than for those without suicide risk. Their findings suggest that GSH may be a potential biomarker or etiologic factor among women at risk for suicide, with therapeutic implications.

This was a case-control study nested within a cohort study. From this cohort, 45 women were selected at 18 months postpartum. Thirty of them had mood disorders, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. The other 15 participants, none of whom had a mood disorder, made up the control group.

Depression and the risk for suicide were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus (MINI-Plus 5.0.0 Brazilian version), module A and module C, respectively. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum levels of the following oxidative stress biomarkers: reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and GSH.

The prevalence of suicide risk observed in the women at 18 months postpartum was 24.4%. The prevalence of suicide risk in the mood disorder group was 36.7%.

In addition, the statistical analysis found that women with moderate to high suicide risk had cerebral redox imbalance, resulting in a decrease in blood GSH levels.

The study team was led by neuroscientist Adriano Martimbianco de Assis, PhD, the coordinator of UCPel’s postgraduate program in health and behavior. He said that the correlation identified between GSH serum levels and suicide risk gives rise to two possible applications: using GSH as a biomarker for suicide risk and using GSH therapeutically.

Regarding the former application, Dr. Martimbianco de Assis explained that additional studies are needed to take a step forward. “Although we believe that most of the GSH came from the brain – given that it’s the brain’s main antioxidant – as we analyze blood samples, we’re not yet able to rule out the possibility that it came from other organs,” he said in an interview. So, confirming that hypothesis will require studies that involve imaging brain tissue. According to Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, once there is confirmation, it will be possible to move to using the antioxidant as a biomarker for suicide risk.

He also shared his views about the second application: using GSH therapeutically. “We already know that there are very simple alternatives that can influence GSH levels, [and they] mostly have to do with exercise and [improving the quality of] the food one eats. But there are also drugs: for example, N-acetyl cysteine, which is a precursor of GSH.” Adopting strategies to increase the levels of this antioxidant in the body should reverse the imbalance identified in the study and, as a result, may lead to lowering the risk for suicide. But, he reiterated, “getting to a place where GSH [can be used] in clinical practice hinges on getting that confirmation that it did, in fact, come from the brain. Recall that our study found lower levels of GSH in women at risk for suicide.”

Even though the study evaluated postpartum women, it’s possible that the results can be extrapolated to other populations, said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis. This is because when the data were collected, 18 months had already passed since giving birth. The participants’ physiological condition at that point was more similar to the one prior to becoming pregnant.

The UCPel researchers continue to follow the cohort. “We intend to continue monitoring GSH levels at other times. Forty-eight months have now passed since the women gave birth, and the idea is to continue studying [the patients involved in the study],” said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, adding that the team also intends to analyze brain tissue from in vitro studies using cell cultures.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately 10,000 suicide deaths are recorded in Brazil every year. The suicide risk is highest among patients with depressive disorders, particularly women (> 18% vs. 11% for men).

There are countless people who work to prevent suicide, and the challenges they face are many. But now, on the horizon, there are new tools that could prove invaluable to their efforts – tools such as biomarkers. In a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, researchers from the Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Brazil, reported an association of glutathione (GSH) with the degree of suicide risk in women at 18 months postpartum. Specifically, they found that reduced serum GSH levels were significantly lower for those with moderate to high suicide risk than for those without suicide risk. Their findings suggest that GSH may be a potential biomarker or etiologic factor among women at risk for suicide, with therapeutic implications.

This was a case-control study nested within a cohort study. From this cohort, 45 women were selected at 18 months postpartum. Thirty of them had mood disorders, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. The other 15 participants, none of whom had a mood disorder, made up the control group.

Depression and the risk for suicide were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus (MINI-Plus 5.0.0 Brazilian version), module A and module C, respectively. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum levels of the following oxidative stress biomarkers: reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and GSH.

The prevalence of suicide risk observed in the women at 18 months postpartum was 24.4%. The prevalence of suicide risk in the mood disorder group was 36.7%.

In addition, the statistical analysis found that women with moderate to high suicide risk had cerebral redox imbalance, resulting in a decrease in blood GSH levels.

The study team was led by neuroscientist Adriano Martimbianco de Assis, PhD, the coordinator of UCPel’s postgraduate program in health and behavior. He said that the correlation identified between GSH serum levels and suicide risk gives rise to two possible applications: using GSH as a biomarker for suicide risk and using GSH therapeutically.

Regarding the former application, Dr. Martimbianco de Assis explained that additional studies are needed to take a step forward. “Although we believe that most of the GSH came from the brain – given that it’s the brain’s main antioxidant – as we analyze blood samples, we’re not yet able to rule out the possibility that it came from other organs,” he said in an interview. So, confirming that hypothesis will require studies that involve imaging brain tissue. According to Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, once there is confirmation, it will be possible to move to using the antioxidant as a biomarker for suicide risk.

He also shared his views about the second application: using GSH therapeutically. “We already know that there are very simple alternatives that can influence GSH levels, [and they] mostly have to do with exercise and [improving the quality of] the food one eats. But there are also drugs: for example, N-acetyl cysteine, which is a precursor of GSH.” Adopting strategies to increase the levels of this antioxidant in the body should reverse the imbalance identified in the study and, as a result, may lead to lowering the risk for suicide. But, he reiterated, “getting to a place where GSH [can be used] in clinical practice hinges on getting that confirmation that it did, in fact, come from the brain. Recall that our study found lower levels of GSH in women at risk for suicide.”

Even though the study evaluated postpartum women, it’s possible that the results can be extrapolated to other populations, said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis. This is because when the data were collected, 18 months had already passed since giving birth. The participants’ physiological condition at that point was more similar to the one prior to becoming pregnant.

The UCPel researchers continue to follow the cohort. “We intend to continue monitoring GSH levels at other times. Forty-eight months have now passed since the women gave birth, and the idea is to continue studying [the patients involved in the study],” said Dr. Martimbianco de Assis, adding that the team also intends to analyze brain tissue from in vitro studies using cell cultures.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

For women with excessive menstrual blood loss, the contraceptive levonorgestrel 52 mg delivered via an intrauterine device (IUD) reduced monthly blood loss by more than 90% over six monthly cycles, a multicenter open-label study reports.

Median blood loss decreased by more than 90% in the first three cycles. Overall, treatment was successful in 81.8% of 99 patients (95% confidence interval, 74.2%-89.4%), according to findings published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Racially diverse cohort

Conducted at 29 U.S. sites prior to seeking FDA registration for this new use, the phase 3 open-label trial of the 52 mg progestin-releasing IUD enrolled 105 participants with a mean age of 35.4 years. Unlike previous trials, this one included obese or severely obese women (44.8%), with 42 participants having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 35 kg/m², and also 28 nulliparous women (27.6%).

Those with abnormalities such as fibroids or coagulopathies were excluded. Although most of the cohort was White (n = 68), the study included Black (n = 25), Asian (n = 4), and Hispanic (n = 10) women, plus 7 from other minorities, suggesting the results would be widely applicable.

Mean baseline blood loss in the cohort ranged from 73 mL to 520 mL (median, 143 mL). Of 89 treated women with follow-up, participants had a median absolute blood-loss decreases of 93.3% (86.1%-97.8%) at cycle three and 97.6% (90.4%-100%) at cycle six. Median bleeding reductions at cycle six were similar between women with and without obesity at 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively, and between nulliparous and parous women at 97.0% and 98.1%, respectively (P = .43). The study, however, was not sufficiently powered to fully analyze these subgroups, the authors acknowledged.

Although results were overall comparable with those of a previous study on a different IUD, the expulsion rate was somewhat higher, at 9%, than the 6% reported in the earlier study.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

“Although this strategy for reducing blood loss is not new, this study is notable because it looked at high-BMI women and nulliparous women,” said Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, an attending physician in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.“No prior trials have included patients with BMIs exceeding 35 kg/m² or nulliparous patients, while this study enrolled a full array of patients, which allowed exploratory analyses of these subpopulations,” Dr. Creinin confirmed.

According to Dr. Gray, the IUD approach has advantages over systemic treatment with oral medication. “First, treatment is not user-dependent so the user doesn’t have to remember to take it. In addition, because the medication is locally targeted in the uterus, it is more effective and there is less fluctuation and variability in drug levels than when taken orally.”

As to treatment durability, Dr. Creinin said, “Long-term studies in a population being treated for heavy menstrual bleeding would be helpful to have an idea of how long this effect lasts. Still, there is no reason to expect that the effect will not last for many years.”

And with this treatment, he added, both patient and clinician can readily detect its effect. “If bleeding begins to increase, they will know!”

Would there be a lingering residual effect even after removal of the IUD? “That is an excellent question that remains to be answered,” Dr. Creinin said. “There are no data on when the heavy bleeding returns, but it would be expected to do so.”

This study was funded, designed, and supervised by Medicines360, which also provided the study treatment. Dr. Creinin disclosed financial relationships with various private-sector companies, including Medicines360, Organon, Fuji Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck & Co. Multiple study coauthors disclosed similar financial ties to industry partners, including Medicines360. Dr. Gray had no potential conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.

For women with excessive menstrual blood loss, the contraceptive levonorgestrel 52 mg delivered via an intrauterine device (IUD) reduced monthly blood loss by more than 90% over six monthly cycles, a multicenter open-label study reports.

Median blood loss decreased by more than 90% in the first three cycles. Overall, treatment was successful in 81.8% of 99 patients (95% confidence interval, 74.2%-89.4%), according to findings published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Racially diverse cohort

Conducted at 29 U.S. sites prior to seeking FDA registration for this new use, the phase 3 open-label trial of the 52 mg progestin-releasing IUD enrolled 105 participants with a mean age of 35.4 years. Unlike previous trials, this one included obese or severely obese women (44.8%), with 42 participants having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 35 kg/m², and also 28 nulliparous women (27.6%).

Those with abnormalities such as fibroids or coagulopathies were excluded. Although most of the cohort was White (n = 68), the study included Black (n = 25), Asian (n = 4), and Hispanic (n = 10) women, plus 7 from other minorities, suggesting the results would be widely applicable.

Mean baseline blood loss in the cohort ranged from 73 mL to 520 mL (median, 143 mL). Of 89 treated women with follow-up, participants had a median absolute blood-loss decreases of 93.3% (86.1%-97.8%) at cycle three and 97.6% (90.4%-100%) at cycle six. Median bleeding reductions at cycle six were similar between women with and without obesity at 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively, and between nulliparous and parous women at 97.0% and 98.1%, respectively (P = .43). The study, however, was not sufficiently powered to fully analyze these subgroups, the authors acknowledged.

Although results were overall comparable with those of a previous study on a different IUD, the expulsion rate was somewhat higher, at 9%, than the 6% reported in the earlier study.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

“Although this strategy for reducing blood loss is not new, this study is notable because it looked at high-BMI women and nulliparous women,” said Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, an attending physician in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.“No prior trials have included patients with BMIs exceeding 35 kg/m² or nulliparous patients, while this study enrolled a full array of patients, which allowed exploratory analyses of these subpopulations,” Dr. Creinin confirmed.

According to Dr. Gray, the IUD approach has advantages over systemic treatment with oral medication. “First, treatment is not user-dependent so the user doesn’t have to remember to take it. In addition, because the medication is locally targeted in the uterus, it is more effective and there is less fluctuation and variability in drug levels than when taken orally.”

As to treatment durability, Dr. Creinin said, “Long-term studies in a population being treated for heavy menstrual bleeding would be helpful to have an idea of how long this effect lasts. Still, there is no reason to expect that the effect will not last for many years.”

And with this treatment, he added, both patient and clinician can readily detect its effect. “If bleeding begins to increase, they will know!”

Would there be a lingering residual effect even after removal of the IUD? “That is an excellent question that remains to be answered,” Dr. Creinin said. “There are no data on when the heavy bleeding returns, but it would be expected to do so.”

This study was funded, designed, and supervised by Medicines360, which also provided the study treatment. Dr. Creinin disclosed financial relationships with various private-sector companies, including Medicines360, Organon, Fuji Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck & Co. Multiple study coauthors disclosed similar financial ties to industry partners, including Medicines360. Dr. Gray had no potential conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.

For women with excessive menstrual blood loss, the contraceptive levonorgestrel 52 mg delivered via an intrauterine device (IUD) reduced monthly blood loss by more than 90% over six monthly cycles, a multicenter open-label study reports.

Median blood loss decreased by more than 90% in the first three cycles. Overall, treatment was successful in 81.8% of 99 patients (95% confidence interval, 74.2%-89.4%), according to findings published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Racially diverse cohort

Conducted at 29 U.S. sites prior to seeking FDA registration for this new use, the phase 3 open-label trial of the 52 mg progestin-releasing IUD enrolled 105 participants with a mean age of 35.4 years. Unlike previous trials, this one included obese or severely obese women (44.8%), with 42 participants having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 35 kg/m², and also 28 nulliparous women (27.6%).

Those with abnormalities such as fibroids or coagulopathies were excluded. Although most of the cohort was White (n = 68), the study included Black (n = 25), Asian (n = 4), and Hispanic (n = 10) women, plus 7 from other minorities, suggesting the results would be widely applicable.

Mean baseline blood loss in the cohort ranged from 73 mL to 520 mL (median, 143 mL). Of 89 treated women with follow-up, participants had a median absolute blood-loss decreases of 93.3% (86.1%-97.8%) at cycle three and 97.6% (90.4%-100%) at cycle six. Median bleeding reductions at cycle six were similar between women with and without obesity at 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively, and between nulliparous and parous women at 97.0% and 98.1%, respectively (P = .43). The study, however, was not sufficiently powered to fully analyze these subgroups, the authors acknowledged.

Although results were overall comparable with those of a previous study on a different IUD, the expulsion rate was somewhat higher, at 9%, than the 6% reported in the earlier study.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

“Although this strategy for reducing blood loss is not new, this study is notable because it looked at high-BMI women and nulliparous women,” said Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, an attending physician in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.“No prior trials have included patients with BMIs exceeding 35 kg/m² or nulliparous patients, while this study enrolled a full array of patients, which allowed exploratory analyses of these subpopulations,” Dr. Creinin confirmed.

According to Dr. Gray, the IUD approach has advantages over systemic treatment with oral medication. “First, treatment is not user-dependent so the user doesn’t have to remember to take it. In addition, because the medication is locally targeted in the uterus, it is more effective and there is less fluctuation and variability in drug levels than when taken orally.”

As to treatment durability, Dr. Creinin said, “Long-term studies in a population being treated for heavy menstrual bleeding would be helpful to have an idea of how long this effect lasts. Still, there is no reason to expect that the effect will not last for many years.”

And with this treatment, he added, both patient and clinician can readily detect its effect. “If bleeding begins to increase, they will know!”

Would there be a lingering residual effect even after removal of the IUD? “That is an excellent question that remains to be answered,” Dr. Creinin said. “There are no data on when the heavy bleeding returns, but it would be expected to do so.”

This study was funded, designed, and supervised by Medicines360, which also provided the study treatment. Dr. Creinin disclosed financial relationships with various private-sector companies, including Medicines360, Organon, Fuji Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck & Co. Multiple study coauthors disclosed similar financial ties to industry partners, including Medicines360. Dr. Gray had no potential conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.

For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.

“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”

The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.

“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”

High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.

“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.

In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.

The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.

“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.

A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.

“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”

“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”

Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”

Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”

Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.

Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.

For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.

“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”

The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.

“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”

High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.

“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.

In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.

The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.

“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.

A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.

“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”

“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”

Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”

Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”

Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.

Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.

For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.

“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”

The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.

“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”

High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.

“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.

In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.

The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.

“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.

A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.

“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”

“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”

Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”

Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”

Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.

Implementing universal ultrasound during the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduced the number of undiagnosed breech presentations, according to a study published in PLOS Medicine. The effects held if sonographers used a traditional ultrasound machine or if midwives used a handheld ultrasound tool to perform what is known as a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) procedure.

“Giving pregnant women a third-trimester scan reduces the rate of undetected breech in labor by over two-thirds, which reduces the chances of harm to the baby,” said Asma Khalil, MBBCh, MD, professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine at the University of London’s St. George’s Hospital, and a coauthor of the new study.

Routine ultrasounds typically are performed from the 10th to the 13th week of pregnancy, not during the third trimester, when the risk for a breech birth would be most apparent. Breech births occur in 3%-4% of pregnancies, raising the risk that babies will experience broken bones or hemorrhage. Knowing that breech is possible before birth enables physicians to discuss options with the pregnant woman in advance, Dr. Khalil said. These steps include rotating the baby in the uterus or conducting a cesarean delivery. Such counseling is not possible if breech is undetected until spontaneous or induced labor. 

“Breech presentation at term is not very common, but diagnosing it prior to the onset of labor or induction of labor offers patients much more flexibility in terms of options and planning,” said Cecilia B. Leggett, MD, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Dr. Leggett, who was not involved in the study, has shown that handheld devices are as accurate at assessing fetal weight as are standard ultrasound machines.
 

Two tools, same result

Dr. Khalil and her colleagues compared the rates of undiagnosed breech presentations before and after implementing universal third-semester ultrasound at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. The requirement began in 2020; the study compared the rate of undiagnosed breeches from the period of 2016-2020 with that of 2020-2021.

St. George’s Hospital in London used a traditional ultrasound machine that is read by a sonographer, whereas the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, employed midwives to use a handheld ultrasound device.

The rate of undiagnosed breech cases declined from 14.2% at St. George’s before the universal ultrasound requirement (82 missed cases of 578 breech births) to 2.8% after the requirement began (7 missed cases of 251 breech births). The story was similar at Norfolk and Norwich, where 16.2% missed breech cases occurred before the requirement (27 of 167) and 3.5% missed cases were reported after it (5 of 142).

The increased accuracy of breech diagnosis before labor probably led to fewer cases of impaired blood flow to a baby’s brain at birth, Dr. Khalil’s group reported, as well as a probable reduction in the number of stillborn babies or those who die extremely young.

Traditional ultrasound scans read by sonographers are expensive, Dr. Khalil noted, whereas the portable handheld devices are much cheaper and could be used widely to improve detection of breech births. That step would require robust training about how to properly use these devices, Dr. Leggett said.

“As we see more and more studies come out about technology for POCUS, I think it’s important to keep in mind that we need the education about the tools to be as accessible as the tools themselves,” she said.

Dr. Leggett had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khalil is a vice president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is a trustee and the treasurer of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has lectured at and consulted in several ultrasound-based projects, webinars, and educational events.
 

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

Implementing universal ultrasound during the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduced the number of undiagnosed breech presentations, according to a study published in PLOS Medicine. The effects held if sonographers used a traditional ultrasound machine or if midwives used a handheld ultrasound tool to perform what is known as a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) procedure.

“Giving pregnant women a third-trimester scan reduces the rate of undetected breech in labor by over two-thirds, which reduces the chances of harm to the baby,” said Asma Khalil, MBBCh, MD, professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine at the University of London’s St. George’s Hospital, and a coauthor of the new study.

Routine ultrasounds typically are performed from the 10th to the 13th week of pregnancy, not during the third trimester, when the risk for a breech birth would be most apparent. Breech births occur in 3%-4% of pregnancies, raising the risk that babies will experience broken bones or hemorrhage. Knowing that breech is possible before birth enables physicians to discuss options with the pregnant woman in advance, Dr. Khalil said. These steps include rotating the baby in the uterus or conducting a cesarean delivery. Such counseling is not possible if breech is undetected until spontaneous or induced labor. 

“Breech presentation at term is not very common, but diagnosing it prior to the onset of labor or induction of labor offers patients much more flexibility in terms of options and planning,” said Cecilia B. Leggett, MD, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Dr. Leggett, who was not involved in the study, has shown that handheld devices are as accurate at assessing fetal weight as are standard ultrasound machines.
 

Two tools, same result

Dr. Khalil and her colleagues compared the rates of undiagnosed breech presentations before and after implementing universal third-semester ultrasound at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. The requirement began in 2020; the study compared the rate of undiagnosed breeches from the period of 2016-2020 with that of 2020-2021.

St. George’s Hospital in London used a traditional ultrasound machine that is read by a sonographer, whereas the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, employed midwives to use a handheld ultrasound device.

The rate of undiagnosed breech cases declined from 14.2% at St. George’s before the universal ultrasound requirement (82 missed cases of 578 breech births) to 2.8% after the requirement began (7 missed cases of 251 breech births). The story was similar at Norfolk and Norwich, where 16.2% missed breech cases occurred before the requirement (27 of 167) and 3.5% missed cases were reported after it (5 of 142).

The increased accuracy of breech diagnosis before labor probably led to fewer cases of impaired blood flow to a baby’s brain at birth, Dr. Khalil’s group reported, as well as a probable reduction in the number of stillborn babies or those who die extremely young.

Traditional ultrasound scans read by sonographers are expensive, Dr. Khalil noted, whereas the portable handheld devices are much cheaper and could be used widely to improve detection of breech births. That step would require robust training about how to properly use these devices, Dr. Leggett said.

“As we see more and more studies come out about technology for POCUS, I think it’s important to keep in mind that we need the education about the tools to be as accessible as the tools themselves,” she said.

Dr. Leggett had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khalil is a vice president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is a trustee and the treasurer of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has lectured at and consulted in several ultrasound-based projects, webinars, and educational events.
 

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

Implementing universal ultrasound during the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduced the number of undiagnosed breech presentations, according to a study published in PLOS Medicine. The effects held if sonographers used a traditional ultrasound machine or if midwives used a handheld ultrasound tool to perform what is known as a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) procedure.

“Giving pregnant women a third-trimester scan reduces the rate of undetected breech in labor by over two-thirds, which reduces the chances of harm to the baby,” said Asma Khalil, MBBCh, MD, professor of obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine at the University of London’s St. George’s Hospital, and a coauthor of the new study.

Routine ultrasounds typically are performed from the 10th to the 13th week of pregnancy, not during the third trimester, when the risk for a breech birth would be most apparent. Breech births occur in 3%-4% of pregnancies, raising the risk that babies will experience broken bones or hemorrhage. Knowing that breech is possible before birth enables physicians to discuss options with the pregnant woman in advance, Dr. Khalil said. These steps include rotating the baby in the uterus or conducting a cesarean delivery. Such counseling is not possible if breech is undetected until spontaneous or induced labor. 

“Breech presentation at term is not very common, but diagnosing it prior to the onset of labor or induction of labor offers patients much more flexibility in terms of options and planning,” said Cecilia B. Leggett, MD, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Dr. Leggett, who was not involved in the study, has shown that handheld devices are as accurate at assessing fetal weight as are standard ultrasound machines.
 

Two tools, same result

Dr. Khalil and her colleagues compared the rates of undiagnosed breech presentations before and after implementing universal third-semester ultrasound at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. The requirement began in 2020; the study compared the rate of undiagnosed breeches from the period of 2016-2020 with that of 2020-2021.

St. George’s Hospital in London used a traditional ultrasound machine that is read by a sonographer, whereas the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, employed midwives to use a handheld ultrasound device.

The rate of undiagnosed breech cases declined from 14.2% at St. George’s before the universal ultrasound requirement (82 missed cases of 578 breech births) to 2.8% after the requirement began (7 missed cases of 251 breech births). The story was similar at Norfolk and Norwich, where 16.2% missed breech cases occurred before the requirement (27 of 167) and 3.5% missed cases were reported after it (5 of 142).

The increased accuracy of breech diagnosis before labor probably led to fewer cases of impaired blood flow to a baby’s brain at birth, Dr. Khalil’s group reported, as well as a probable reduction in the number of stillborn babies or those who die extremely young.

Traditional ultrasound scans read by sonographers are expensive, Dr. Khalil noted, whereas the portable handheld devices are much cheaper and could be used widely to improve detection of breech births. That step would require robust training about how to properly use these devices, Dr. Leggett said.

“As we see more and more studies come out about technology for POCUS, I think it’s important to keep in mind that we need the education about the tools to be as accessible as the tools themselves,” she said.

Dr. Leggett had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khalil is a vice president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is a trustee and the treasurer of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has lectured at and consulted in several ultrasound-based projects, webinars, and educational events.
 

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

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.