User login
Increased cancer in military pilots and ground crew: Pentagon
“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.
The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.
Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.
For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.
The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.
For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
Lower rates of cancer mortality
In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.
When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.
However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”
The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.
“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.
Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
Further study underway
The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.
The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.
The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.
Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.
For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.
The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.
For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
Lower rates of cancer mortality
In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.
When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.
However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”
The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.
“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.
Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
Further study underway
The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.
The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.
The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.
Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.
For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.
The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.
For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.
There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
Lower rates of cancer mortality
In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.
When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.
However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”
The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.
“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.
Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
Further study underway
The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.
The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New rheumatologists need insurance awareness to give best care
SAN FRANCISCO – New rheumatologists face a wide range of significant challenges brought on by the increasing complexity of insurance billing and rapid changes to managed care practices, especially techniques of utilization management and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), speakers said at the 2023 Fellows Conference of the Coalition for State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
“We are seeing the impact of the environment eroding the patient-doctor relationship,” CSRO President Gary Feldman, MD, told participants.
Michael Saitta, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist in Fayetteville, Ark., said fellows should learn more about health insurance to take better care of their patients and their practice. “Your training includes a variable level of discourse on the health insurance market,” he said. Health insurance today is a mess. Costs have exploded. “Is anybody really happy with the current system?”
Although the health care system is sometimes compared to a dumpster fire, he said, a plate of spaghetti, with its multiple interconnected pathways, might be a better metaphor for understanding all that’s happening in the health care system and, more importantly, how it might be fixed.
Madelaine Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist in private practice in New Orleans and CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs, is a frequent advocate in Congress, state legislatures, and elsewhere regarding the utilization management techniques used by managed care and PBMs and how these are negatively affecting the ability of rheumatology patients to get the treatments they need. Such techniques include the following:
- Prior authorizations imposed by the health plan before a medication can be dispensed.
- Step therapy, which requires the patient to fail as many as three or four payer-preferred drugs before trying the one recommended by the rheumatologist.
- Nonmedical switching, in which a patient is forced to change medications for a nonmedical reason related to the PBM’s formulary.
- Accumulator adjustment programs, which increase the patient’s out-of-pocket and deductible commitments.
“There is very little transparency in how the money flows with PBMs,” Dr. Madelaine Feldman said. “In reality, PBMs are able to make profits by the perverse incentive of putting higher-priced drugs on their formularies, thus increasing the amount of rebates paid to them, without sharing any of the benefit with patients.”
PBMs have resisted disclosing this information, saying it would inhibit competition and cause drug prices to go up. The key thing to understand, she said, is that there is huge competition today to get preferred formulary placement. “Consequently, treatment choice for patients is not based on doctor-patient shared decision-making but on the highest rebate promised to the PBM,” she said.
“A rheumatology fellow recently told me that his patients will sometimes blame him for the lack of choice and high prices of the medications,” she noted. What she has started to do with patients, after discussing all the available drugs appropriate to their condition, is to ask: “What is your insurance? The reason I’m asking is that we can come up with a game plan, but the entity that will determine what you will receive is the insurance company.”
What does Dr. Madelaine Feldman want fellows to take away from the CSRO conference? “I hope to arouse their anger, initially, which then works its way into a passion to change the system. We’re all so busy. Sometimes it takes lighting a fire under people,” she said.
CSRO has an online action center to facilitate sending letters to legislators, as well as a map tool for looking up any active legislation in their state. “Spread the word to your peers. Use your voice to help pass PBM reforms. Tell other fellows to come to the next CSRO fellows meeting,” she said.
“We got into this space because a few community rheumatologists were angry over decisions about how drug infusions would be paid for,” she said. “A group went to Washington, to Congress and Medicare, and changed the policy,” Dr. Madelaine Feldman said. A few passionate people really can make a difference. “Join the action. We’re always looking for rheumatologists and their patients to testify on these issues.”
No relevant financial relationships were reported by the conference speakers.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN FRANCISCO – New rheumatologists face a wide range of significant challenges brought on by the increasing complexity of insurance billing and rapid changes to managed care practices, especially techniques of utilization management and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), speakers said at the 2023 Fellows Conference of the Coalition for State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
“We are seeing the impact of the environment eroding the patient-doctor relationship,” CSRO President Gary Feldman, MD, told participants.
Michael Saitta, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist in Fayetteville, Ark., said fellows should learn more about health insurance to take better care of their patients and their practice. “Your training includes a variable level of discourse on the health insurance market,” he said. Health insurance today is a mess. Costs have exploded. “Is anybody really happy with the current system?”
Although the health care system is sometimes compared to a dumpster fire, he said, a plate of spaghetti, with its multiple interconnected pathways, might be a better metaphor for understanding all that’s happening in the health care system and, more importantly, how it might be fixed.
Madelaine Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist in private practice in New Orleans and CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs, is a frequent advocate in Congress, state legislatures, and elsewhere regarding the utilization management techniques used by managed care and PBMs and how these are negatively affecting the ability of rheumatology patients to get the treatments they need. Such techniques include the following:
- Prior authorizations imposed by the health plan before a medication can be dispensed.
- Step therapy, which requires the patient to fail as many as three or four payer-preferred drugs before trying the one recommended by the rheumatologist.
- Nonmedical switching, in which a patient is forced to change medications for a nonmedical reason related to the PBM’s formulary.
- Accumulator adjustment programs, which increase the patient’s out-of-pocket and deductible commitments.
“There is very little transparency in how the money flows with PBMs,” Dr. Madelaine Feldman said. “In reality, PBMs are able to make profits by the perverse incentive of putting higher-priced drugs on their formularies, thus increasing the amount of rebates paid to them, without sharing any of the benefit with patients.”
PBMs have resisted disclosing this information, saying it would inhibit competition and cause drug prices to go up. The key thing to understand, she said, is that there is huge competition today to get preferred formulary placement. “Consequently, treatment choice for patients is not based on doctor-patient shared decision-making but on the highest rebate promised to the PBM,” she said.
“A rheumatology fellow recently told me that his patients will sometimes blame him for the lack of choice and high prices of the medications,” she noted. What she has started to do with patients, after discussing all the available drugs appropriate to their condition, is to ask: “What is your insurance? The reason I’m asking is that we can come up with a game plan, but the entity that will determine what you will receive is the insurance company.”
What does Dr. Madelaine Feldman want fellows to take away from the CSRO conference? “I hope to arouse their anger, initially, which then works its way into a passion to change the system. We’re all so busy. Sometimes it takes lighting a fire under people,” she said.
CSRO has an online action center to facilitate sending letters to legislators, as well as a map tool for looking up any active legislation in their state. “Spread the word to your peers. Use your voice to help pass PBM reforms. Tell other fellows to come to the next CSRO fellows meeting,” she said.
“We got into this space because a few community rheumatologists were angry over decisions about how drug infusions would be paid for,” she said. “A group went to Washington, to Congress and Medicare, and changed the policy,” Dr. Madelaine Feldman said. A few passionate people really can make a difference. “Join the action. We’re always looking for rheumatologists and their patients to testify on these issues.”
No relevant financial relationships were reported by the conference speakers.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN FRANCISCO – New rheumatologists face a wide range of significant challenges brought on by the increasing complexity of insurance billing and rapid changes to managed care practices, especially techniques of utilization management and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), speakers said at the 2023 Fellows Conference of the Coalition for State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
“We are seeing the impact of the environment eroding the patient-doctor relationship,” CSRO President Gary Feldman, MD, told participants.
Michael Saitta, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist in Fayetteville, Ark., said fellows should learn more about health insurance to take better care of their patients and their practice. “Your training includes a variable level of discourse on the health insurance market,” he said. Health insurance today is a mess. Costs have exploded. “Is anybody really happy with the current system?”
Although the health care system is sometimes compared to a dumpster fire, he said, a plate of spaghetti, with its multiple interconnected pathways, might be a better metaphor for understanding all that’s happening in the health care system and, more importantly, how it might be fixed.
Madelaine Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist in private practice in New Orleans and CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs, is a frequent advocate in Congress, state legislatures, and elsewhere regarding the utilization management techniques used by managed care and PBMs and how these are negatively affecting the ability of rheumatology patients to get the treatments they need. Such techniques include the following:
- Prior authorizations imposed by the health plan before a medication can be dispensed.
- Step therapy, which requires the patient to fail as many as three or four payer-preferred drugs before trying the one recommended by the rheumatologist.
- Nonmedical switching, in which a patient is forced to change medications for a nonmedical reason related to the PBM’s formulary.
- Accumulator adjustment programs, which increase the patient’s out-of-pocket and deductible commitments.
“There is very little transparency in how the money flows with PBMs,” Dr. Madelaine Feldman said. “In reality, PBMs are able to make profits by the perverse incentive of putting higher-priced drugs on their formularies, thus increasing the amount of rebates paid to them, without sharing any of the benefit with patients.”
PBMs have resisted disclosing this information, saying it would inhibit competition and cause drug prices to go up. The key thing to understand, she said, is that there is huge competition today to get preferred formulary placement. “Consequently, treatment choice for patients is not based on doctor-patient shared decision-making but on the highest rebate promised to the PBM,” she said.
“A rheumatology fellow recently told me that his patients will sometimes blame him for the lack of choice and high prices of the medications,” she noted. What she has started to do with patients, after discussing all the available drugs appropriate to their condition, is to ask: “What is your insurance? The reason I’m asking is that we can come up with a game plan, but the entity that will determine what you will receive is the insurance company.”
What does Dr. Madelaine Feldman want fellows to take away from the CSRO conference? “I hope to arouse their anger, initially, which then works its way into a passion to change the system. We’re all so busy. Sometimes it takes lighting a fire under people,” she said.
CSRO has an online action center to facilitate sending letters to legislators, as well as a map tool for looking up any active legislation in their state. “Spread the word to your peers. Use your voice to help pass PBM reforms. Tell other fellows to come to the next CSRO fellows meeting,” she said.
“We got into this space because a few community rheumatologists were angry over decisions about how drug infusions would be paid for,” she said. “A group went to Washington, to Congress and Medicare, and changed the policy,” Dr. Madelaine Feldman said. A few passionate people really can make a difference. “Join the action. We’re always looking for rheumatologists and their patients to testify on these issues.”
No relevant financial relationships were reported by the conference speakers.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Guidelines: Don’t delay total joint arthroplasty for additional nonoperative therapies
Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.
The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.
The guidelines also recommended:
- Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
- Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
- Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.
The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.
Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.
The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.
Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.
The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.
The guidelines also recommended:
- Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
- Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
- Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.
The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.
Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.
The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.
Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.
The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.
The guidelines also recommended:
- Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
- Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
- Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.
The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.
Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.
The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.
Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccinations lag in youngest children
Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.
The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.
“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”
“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.
“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”
That mom is not alone.
COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.
COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series.
In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.1 ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.
Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.
While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.2 Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children.
According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.3Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick.
Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.4 About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.5 Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.
“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”
The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.
2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.
3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.
4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.
5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.
Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.
The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.
“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”
“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.
“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”
That mom is not alone.
COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.
COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series.
In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.1 ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.
Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.
While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.2 Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children.
According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.3Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick.
Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.4 About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.5 Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.
“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”
The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.
2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.
3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.
4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.
5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.
Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.
The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.
“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”
“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.
“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”
That mom is not alone.
COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.
COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series.
In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.1 ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.
Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.
While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.2 Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children.
According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.3Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick.
Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.4 About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.5 Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.
“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”
The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.
2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.
3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.
4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.
5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.
SCLC: Presentation and Diagnosis
Older woman presents with shortness of breath
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most aggressive lung cancer subtype, has a poor prognosis, and is highly associated with smoking. It accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. Rapid tumor growth may lead to obstruction of major airways, with distal collapse leading to postobstructive pneumonitis, infection, and fever. SCLCs usually grow rapidly and metastasize to mediastinal lymph nodes relatively early in the course of the disease. At presentation, patients may have very large intrathoracic tumors, and distinguishing the primary tumor from lymph node metastases may be difficult.
CT of all common sites of metastasis should be performed to stage the disease. CT scanning of the thorax (lungs and mediastinum) and commonly involved abdominal viscera is the minimum requirement in standard staging workup of SCLC. Intravenous contrast agents should be used whenever possible. In the United States, CT scans of the chest and upper abdomen to include the liver and adrenal glands are standard. The liver is a common site of metastasis.
Most cases of SCLC will present in advanced stages, be inoperable, and have a dismal prognosis. Only about 5% of patients present at an early stage (Ia, Ib, or IIa). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that these patients be managed with aggressive chemoradiation therapy; in some, lobectomy associated with mediastinal lymph node dissection may be performed. The NCCN notes that advanced disease is managed primarily with chemotherapy, mainly for palliation and symptom control. Older patients, such as the current patient, who have a good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) and intact organ function should receive standard carboplatin-based chemotherapy. However, even those who have poor prognostic factors (eg, poor performance status, medically significant concomitant conditions) may still be considered for chemotherapy if appropriate precautions are taken to avoid excessive toxicity and further decline in performance status.
Unlike non-SCLC, which has seen waves of new drug approvals from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the prognosis for SCLC has not changed substantially in the past two decades and remains poor. However, the FDA approved atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide for first-line treatment of adult patients with extensive-stage SCLC. Further, the approval of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy; and the approval of lurbinectedin, a novel chemotherapy agent approved for second-line treatment of SCLC, have added to the therapeutic options for patients with SCLC.
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most aggressive lung cancer subtype, has a poor prognosis, and is highly associated with smoking. It accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. Rapid tumor growth may lead to obstruction of major airways, with distal collapse leading to postobstructive pneumonitis, infection, and fever. SCLCs usually grow rapidly and metastasize to mediastinal lymph nodes relatively early in the course of the disease. At presentation, patients may have very large intrathoracic tumors, and distinguishing the primary tumor from lymph node metastases may be difficult.
CT of all common sites of metastasis should be performed to stage the disease. CT scanning of the thorax (lungs and mediastinum) and commonly involved abdominal viscera is the minimum requirement in standard staging workup of SCLC. Intravenous contrast agents should be used whenever possible. In the United States, CT scans of the chest and upper abdomen to include the liver and adrenal glands are standard. The liver is a common site of metastasis.
Most cases of SCLC will present in advanced stages, be inoperable, and have a dismal prognosis. Only about 5% of patients present at an early stage (Ia, Ib, or IIa). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that these patients be managed with aggressive chemoradiation therapy; in some, lobectomy associated with mediastinal lymph node dissection may be performed. The NCCN notes that advanced disease is managed primarily with chemotherapy, mainly for palliation and symptom control. Older patients, such as the current patient, who have a good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) and intact organ function should receive standard carboplatin-based chemotherapy. However, even those who have poor prognostic factors (eg, poor performance status, medically significant concomitant conditions) may still be considered for chemotherapy if appropriate precautions are taken to avoid excessive toxicity and further decline in performance status.
Unlike non-SCLC, which has seen waves of new drug approvals from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the prognosis for SCLC has not changed substantially in the past two decades and remains poor. However, the FDA approved atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide for first-line treatment of adult patients with extensive-stage SCLC. Further, the approval of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy; and the approval of lurbinectedin, a novel chemotherapy agent approved for second-line treatment of SCLC, have added to the therapeutic options for patients with SCLC.
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most aggressive lung cancer subtype, has a poor prognosis, and is highly associated with smoking. It accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. Rapid tumor growth may lead to obstruction of major airways, with distal collapse leading to postobstructive pneumonitis, infection, and fever. SCLCs usually grow rapidly and metastasize to mediastinal lymph nodes relatively early in the course of the disease. At presentation, patients may have very large intrathoracic tumors, and distinguishing the primary tumor from lymph node metastases may be difficult.
CT of all common sites of metastasis should be performed to stage the disease. CT scanning of the thorax (lungs and mediastinum) and commonly involved abdominal viscera is the minimum requirement in standard staging workup of SCLC. Intravenous contrast agents should be used whenever possible. In the United States, CT scans of the chest and upper abdomen to include the liver and adrenal glands are standard. The liver is a common site of metastasis.
Most cases of SCLC will present in advanced stages, be inoperable, and have a dismal prognosis. Only about 5% of patients present at an early stage (Ia, Ib, or IIa). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that these patients be managed with aggressive chemoradiation therapy; in some, lobectomy associated with mediastinal lymph node dissection may be performed. The NCCN notes that advanced disease is managed primarily with chemotherapy, mainly for palliation and symptom control. Older patients, such as the current patient, who have a good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) and intact organ function should receive standard carboplatin-based chemotherapy. However, even those who have poor prognostic factors (eg, poor performance status, medically significant concomitant conditions) may still be considered for chemotherapy if appropriate precautions are taken to avoid excessive toxicity and further decline in performance status.
Unlike non-SCLC, which has seen waves of new drug approvals from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the prognosis for SCLC has not changed substantially in the past two decades and remains poor. However, the FDA approved atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide for first-line treatment of adult patients with extensive-stage SCLC. Further, the approval of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy; and the approval of lurbinectedin, a novel chemotherapy agent approved for second-line treatment of SCLC, have added to the therapeutic options for patients with SCLC.
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships
A 72-year-old woman presents with shortness of breath, a productive cough, chest pain, some fatigue, anorexia, a recent 18-pound weight loss, and a history of hypertension. She is currently a smoker and has a 45–pack-year smoking history. On physical examination she has some dullness to percussion with some decreased breath sounds. She has a distended abdomen and complains of itchy skin. The chest x-ray shows a left hilar mass and a 5.4-cm left upper-lobe mass. A CT scan reveals a hilar mass with a mediastinal extension.
Shortness of breath and chest pain
Liver biopsy will reveal the cause of the liver dysfunction and confirm whether this patient has small cell lung cancer (SCLC), as suspected, and whether it has spread to the liver. This will affect chemotherapy options.
Most cases of SCLC will present in advanced stages, be inoperable, and have a dismal prognosis. Only about 5% of patients present at an early stage (Ia, Ib, or IIa). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with advanced disease be managed with aggressive chemoradiation therapy and immunotherapy.
SCLC is the most aggressive lung cancer subtype. It is almost always associated with smoking. It accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. Rapid tumor growth may lead to obstruction of major airways, with distal collapse leading to postobstructive pneumonitis, infection, and fever. About 70% of patients show metastatic spread at presentation, and the liver is one of the most common sites of metastasis.
Unlike non-SCLC, for which the prognosis has improved in part because of several new drug approvals from the US Food and Drug Administration, the prognosis for SCLC has not changed substantially in the past two decades and remains poor. However, with immunotherapy, the outlook may be improving. The NCCN recommends atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide for first-line treatment of adult patients with extensive-stage SCLC. Furthermore, the approval of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the approval of lurbinectedin, a novel chemotherapy agent approved for second-line treatment of SCLC, have added to the therapeutic options for patients with advanced SCLC.
Maurie Markman, MD, President, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AstraZeneca; Novis; Glaxo Smith Kline
Received research grants from: AstraZeneca; Novis; GSK; Merck
Liver biopsy will reveal the cause of the liver dysfunction and confirm whether this patient has small cell lung cancer (SCLC), as suspected, and whether it has spread to the liver. This will affect chemotherapy options.
Most cases of SCLC will present in advanced stages, be inoperable, and have a dismal prognosis. Only about 5% of patients present at an early stage (Ia, Ib, or IIa). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with advanced disease be managed with aggressive chemoradiation therapy and immunotherapy.
SCLC is the most aggressive lung cancer subtype. It is almost always associated with smoking. It accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. Rapid tumor growth may lead to obstruction of major airways, with distal collapse leading to postobstructive pneumonitis, infection, and fever. About 70% of patients show metastatic spread at presentation, and the liver is one of the most common sites of metastasis.
Unlike non-SCLC, for which the prognosis has improved in part because of several new drug approvals from the US Food and Drug Administration, the prognosis for SCLC has not changed substantially in the past two decades and remains poor. However, with immunotherapy, the outlook may be improving. The NCCN recommends atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide for first-line treatment of adult patients with extensive-stage SCLC. Furthermore, the approval of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the approval of lurbinectedin, a novel chemotherapy agent approved for second-line treatment of SCLC, have added to the therapeutic options for patients with advanced SCLC.
Maurie Markman, MD, President, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AstraZeneca; Novis; Glaxo Smith Kline
Received research grants from: AstraZeneca; Novis; GSK; Merck
Liver biopsy will reveal the cause of the liver dysfunction and confirm whether this patient has small cell lung cancer (SCLC), as suspected, and whether it has spread to the liver. This will affect chemotherapy options.
Most cases of SCLC will present in advanced stages, be inoperable, and have a dismal prognosis. Only about 5% of patients present at an early stage (Ia, Ib, or IIa). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with advanced disease be managed with aggressive chemoradiation therapy and immunotherapy.
SCLC is the most aggressive lung cancer subtype. It is almost always associated with smoking. It accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. Rapid tumor growth may lead to obstruction of major airways, with distal collapse leading to postobstructive pneumonitis, infection, and fever. About 70% of patients show metastatic spread at presentation, and the liver is one of the most common sites of metastasis.
Unlike non-SCLC, for which the prognosis has improved in part because of several new drug approvals from the US Food and Drug Administration, the prognosis for SCLC has not changed substantially in the past two decades and remains poor. However, with immunotherapy, the outlook may be improving. The NCCN recommends atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide for first-line treatment of adult patients with extensive-stage SCLC. Furthermore, the approval of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the approval of lurbinectedin, a novel chemotherapy agent approved for second-line treatment of SCLC, have added to the therapeutic options for patients with advanced SCLC.
Maurie Markman, MD, President, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AstraZeneca; Novis; Glaxo Smith Kline
Received research grants from: AstraZeneca; Novis; GSK; Merck
A 64-year-old man presents with shortness of breath, a productive cough, chest pain, some fatigue, anorexia, a recent 15-lb weight loss, jaundice, and a history of type 2 diabetes. He is a college professor and has a 35–pack-year smoking history; he quit 3 years ago.
On physical examination, he has dullness to percussion and decreased breath sounds. His laboratory data reveal elevated serum liver enzyme levels. Chest radiography shows a left hilar mass and a 5.6-cm left upper lobe mass. CT reveals a hilar mass with a bilateral mediastinal extension and pneumonia. PET shows activity in the left upper lobe mass, with supraclavicular nodal areas and liver lesions. MRI shows that there are no metastases to the brain.
Woman presents with cough and bronchorrhea
Bronchioalveolar cell carcinoma (BAC) is a variant of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that, in recent years, has received a new identity in some of the literature. Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) are relatively new entities that in some published literature have replaced the term BAC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recognizes these terms. AIS is defined as a localized adenocarcinoma of < 3 cm that exhibits a lepidic growth pattern, with neoplastic cells along the alveolar structures but without stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. MIA refers to small, solitary adenocarcinomas < 3 cm with either pure lepidic growth or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm of stromal invasion. BAC has unique epidemiologic, pathologic, and clinical features compared with other NSCLC subtypes. For example, although it is smoking-related, the relationship of BAC to smoking is less strong than with other types of NSCLC. About a third of patients with BAC are never-smokers.
There are also some unique radiographic features — its presentation may be confused with pneumonia or other inflammatory conditions in the lung, and only after a patient does not improve after a course of antibiotics should a diagnosis of BAC be considered. Unlike other types of lung cancer where chemotherapy may be the first plan of attack, surgery is often the first choice for treating BAC, particularly when there is no mediastinal node involvement (10%-25% of cases) or distal metastases (5% of cases). BAC usually harbors EGFR mutation. It is responsive to new targeted therapies for lung cancer, particularly osimertinib, afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. Thus, people with BAC are good candidates for genetic testing.
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Bronchioalveolar cell carcinoma (BAC) is a variant of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that, in recent years, has received a new identity in some of the literature. Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) are relatively new entities that in some published literature have replaced the term BAC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recognizes these terms. AIS is defined as a localized adenocarcinoma of < 3 cm that exhibits a lepidic growth pattern, with neoplastic cells along the alveolar structures but without stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. MIA refers to small, solitary adenocarcinomas < 3 cm with either pure lepidic growth or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm of stromal invasion. BAC has unique epidemiologic, pathologic, and clinical features compared with other NSCLC subtypes. For example, although it is smoking-related, the relationship of BAC to smoking is less strong than with other types of NSCLC. About a third of patients with BAC are never-smokers.
There are also some unique radiographic features — its presentation may be confused with pneumonia or other inflammatory conditions in the lung, and only after a patient does not improve after a course of antibiotics should a diagnosis of BAC be considered. Unlike other types of lung cancer where chemotherapy may be the first plan of attack, surgery is often the first choice for treating BAC, particularly when there is no mediastinal node involvement (10%-25% of cases) or distal metastases (5% of cases). BAC usually harbors EGFR mutation. It is responsive to new targeted therapies for lung cancer, particularly osimertinib, afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. Thus, people with BAC are good candidates for genetic testing.
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Bronchioalveolar cell carcinoma (BAC) is a variant of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that, in recent years, has received a new identity in some of the literature. Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) are relatively new entities that in some published literature have replaced the term BAC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recognizes these terms. AIS is defined as a localized adenocarcinoma of < 3 cm that exhibits a lepidic growth pattern, with neoplastic cells along the alveolar structures but without stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. MIA refers to small, solitary adenocarcinomas < 3 cm with either pure lepidic growth or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm of stromal invasion. BAC has unique epidemiologic, pathologic, and clinical features compared with other NSCLC subtypes. For example, although it is smoking-related, the relationship of BAC to smoking is less strong than with other types of NSCLC. About a third of patients with BAC are never-smokers.
There are also some unique radiographic features — its presentation may be confused with pneumonia or other inflammatory conditions in the lung, and only after a patient does not improve after a course of antibiotics should a diagnosis of BAC be considered. Unlike other types of lung cancer where chemotherapy may be the first plan of attack, surgery is often the first choice for treating BAC, particularly when there is no mediastinal node involvement (10%-25% of cases) or distal metastases (5% of cases). BAC usually harbors EGFR mutation. It is responsive to new targeted therapies for lung cancer, particularly osimertinib, afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. Thus, people with BAC are good candidates for genetic testing.
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts
Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A 50-year-old woman, a never-smoker, presented with complaints of intermittent cough and shortness of breath for 3 months, associated with bronchorrhea (copious watery sputum production). She had lost 15 pounds in the past 2 months and had dyspnea on exertion for 1 month. Her pulse rate was 88/min, respiratory rate 18/min, and oxygen saturation 96% on room air. A chest x-ray (posteroanterior view) showed dense opacity in the right lower zone. Contrast-enhanced CT of the thorax showed diffuse ground-glass opacities around nodules and consolidation involving the apical and basal segments of the right lower lobe. Despite several courses of antimicrobials, bronchodilators, and IV corticosteroid therapy, the patient's condition worsened.
SCLC: The Basics
Older men more at risk as dangerous falls rise for all seniors
When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers.
This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women.
This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said.
Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.”
The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.
The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too.
Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”
In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.
Starting early
While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines.
“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.”
As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip.
“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.”
A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.
If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said.
She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions.
From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more.
“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”
Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.”
Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways.
For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries.
“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said.
Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners.
“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers.
This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women.
This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said.
Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.”
The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.
The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too.
Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”
In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.
Starting early
While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines.
“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.”
As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip.
“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.”
A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.
If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said.
She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions.
From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more.
“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”
Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.”
Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways.
For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries.
“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said.
Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners.
“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers.
This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women.
This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said.
Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.”
The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.
The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too.
Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”
In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.
Starting early
While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines.
“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.”
As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip.
“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.”
A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.
If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said.
She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions.
From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more.
“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”
Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.”
Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways.
For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries.
“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said.
Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners.
“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.