User login
Spinal cord stimulation restores poststroke arm, hand function in two patients
The results provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” wrote first author Marc P. Powell, PhD, of Reach Neuro Inc., Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
The findings were published online in Nature Medicine.
Top cause of paralysis
“Stroke is the largest cause of paralysis in the world,” with nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experiencing lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand, co–senior study author Marco Capogrosso, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said during a press briefing.
Stroke can disrupt communication between the brain and the spinal cord, leading to motor deficits in the arm and hand. However, below the lesion, the spinal circuits that control movement remain intact and could be targeted to restore function, Dr. Capogrosso noted.
Spinal cord stimulation has shown promise in promoting long-lasting recovery of leg motor function in patients with spinal cord injury; but until now, it’s been largely unexplored for upper-limb recovery.
In this “first-in-human” study, the investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two patients.
One of the patients was a woman (age, 31 years) who had experienced a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before enrolling in the pilot study.
The other patient was a woman (age, 47 years) who experienced a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection, resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before entering the study.
In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.
The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that the younger woman had not been able to do for 9 years.
“Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies,” Dr. Capogrosso said in a news release.
No serious adverse events were reported.
‘Easily translated’
Dr. Capogrosso said that, thanks to years of preclinical research, the investigators have developed a practical, easy-to-use stimulation protocol adapting existing clinical technologies that “could be easily translated to the hospital and quickly moved from the lab to the clinic.”
The researchers noted, however, that further studies in larger cohorts will be required to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.
They are currently working with more patients with stroke to fine-tune placement of the leads and stimulation protocol, as well as determine which patients are best suited for the approach.
“Creating effective neurorehabilitation solutions for people affected by movement impairment after stroke is becoming ever more urgent,” co–senior author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh, said in the release.
“Even mild deficits resulting from a stroke can isolate people from social and professional lives and become very debilitating, with motor impairments in the arm and hand being especially taxing and impeding simple daily activities, such as writing, eating, and getting dressed,” she added.
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, with additional research support provided by the Department of Neurological Surgery and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Pitt, and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Neuroscience Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Three investigators have financial interests in Reach Neuro, which has an interest in the technology being evaluated in this study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” wrote first author Marc P. Powell, PhD, of Reach Neuro Inc., Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
The findings were published online in Nature Medicine.
Top cause of paralysis
“Stroke is the largest cause of paralysis in the world,” with nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experiencing lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand, co–senior study author Marco Capogrosso, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said during a press briefing.
Stroke can disrupt communication between the brain and the spinal cord, leading to motor deficits in the arm and hand. However, below the lesion, the spinal circuits that control movement remain intact and could be targeted to restore function, Dr. Capogrosso noted.
Spinal cord stimulation has shown promise in promoting long-lasting recovery of leg motor function in patients with spinal cord injury; but until now, it’s been largely unexplored for upper-limb recovery.
In this “first-in-human” study, the investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two patients.
One of the patients was a woman (age, 31 years) who had experienced a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before enrolling in the pilot study.
The other patient was a woman (age, 47 years) who experienced a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection, resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before entering the study.
In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.
The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that the younger woman had not been able to do for 9 years.
“Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies,” Dr. Capogrosso said in a news release.
No serious adverse events were reported.
‘Easily translated’
Dr. Capogrosso said that, thanks to years of preclinical research, the investigators have developed a practical, easy-to-use stimulation protocol adapting existing clinical technologies that “could be easily translated to the hospital and quickly moved from the lab to the clinic.”
The researchers noted, however, that further studies in larger cohorts will be required to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.
They are currently working with more patients with stroke to fine-tune placement of the leads and stimulation protocol, as well as determine which patients are best suited for the approach.
“Creating effective neurorehabilitation solutions for people affected by movement impairment after stroke is becoming ever more urgent,” co–senior author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh, said in the release.
“Even mild deficits resulting from a stroke can isolate people from social and professional lives and become very debilitating, with motor impairments in the arm and hand being especially taxing and impeding simple daily activities, such as writing, eating, and getting dressed,” she added.
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, with additional research support provided by the Department of Neurological Surgery and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Pitt, and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Neuroscience Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Three investigators have financial interests in Reach Neuro, which has an interest in the technology being evaluated in this study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” wrote first author Marc P. Powell, PhD, of Reach Neuro Inc., Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
The findings were published online in Nature Medicine.
Top cause of paralysis
“Stroke is the largest cause of paralysis in the world,” with nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experiencing lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand, co–senior study author Marco Capogrosso, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said during a press briefing.
Stroke can disrupt communication between the brain and the spinal cord, leading to motor deficits in the arm and hand. However, below the lesion, the spinal circuits that control movement remain intact and could be targeted to restore function, Dr. Capogrosso noted.
Spinal cord stimulation has shown promise in promoting long-lasting recovery of leg motor function in patients with spinal cord injury; but until now, it’s been largely unexplored for upper-limb recovery.
In this “first-in-human” study, the investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two patients.
One of the patients was a woman (age, 31 years) who had experienced a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before enrolling in the pilot study.
The other patient was a woman (age, 47 years) who experienced a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection, resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before entering the study.
In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.
The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that the younger woman had not been able to do for 9 years.
“Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies,” Dr. Capogrosso said in a news release.
No serious adverse events were reported.
‘Easily translated’
Dr. Capogrosso said that, thanks to years of preclinical research, the investigators have developed a practical, easy-to-use stimulation protocol adapting existing clinical technologies that “could be easily translated to the hospital and quickly moved from the lab to the clinic.”
The researchers noted, however, that further studies in larger cohorts will be required to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.
They are currently working with more patients with stroke to fine-tune placement of the leads and stimulation protocol, as well as determine which patients are best suited for the approach.
“Creating effective neurorehabilitation solutions for people affected by movement impairment after stroke is becoming ever more urgent,” co–senior author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh, said in the release.
“Even mild deficits resulting from a stroke can isolate people from social and professional lives and become very debilitating, with motor impairments in the arm and hand being especially taxing and impeding simple daily activities, such as writing, eating, and getting dressed,” she added.
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, with additional research support provided by the Department of Neurological Surgery and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Pitt, and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Neuroscience Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Three investigators have financial interests in Reach Neuro, which has an interest in the technology being evaluated in this study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Postop RT: Meaningful survival improvement in N2 lung cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, speaking today about a topic that’s become quite controversial, which is
Data from clinical trials and data from a SEER study showed approximately 7% improvement in overall survival in patients with N2 disease who received PORT. There has been a very clear demonstration of an improved local control rate in every trial that’s ever looked at PORT.
However, there was a randomized trial, the Lung ART trial, where patients were randomized to get PORT or not. PORT was delivered in a way that is not routinely used now. In that trial, the benefit of PORT was found in terms of local control, almost doubling control within the mediastinum.
The difference in overall survival was less than 12%. Again, I’m not surprised to see that because the improvement in overall survival is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%. They also found an excess of deaths, probably due to cardiac causes from the radiation in the radiation arm.
However, the trial used a type of radiation not used at this point – it used conformal, but now we would use 3D. And its ability at the time of the trial to estimate and lower cardiac risk was not what it is today. Owing to the design of the trial, it was not a significant difference and has largely been interpreted as saying that the PORT doesn’t work.
First, let’s please go to the guidelines. I’m going to the ASCO guidelines, which say that patients with mediastinal disease should not routinely get PORT, but they should be routinely referred to a radiation oncologist for consideration of PORT. I don’t think anything that’s been published so far changes that.
I think each case needs to be individualized and requires the specialty care of a radiation oncologist to weigh the pros and cons of PORT. It also depends upon the treatment plan. Can the heart be spared? Are there radiation techniques available that would eliminate or lessen heart exposure, such as using protons? The point is that PORT is still needed.
When we look at the trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapy – and I’m looking particularly at the ADAURA trial where patients received adjuvant osimertinib – the greatest number of failures now is in the chest. We have to look for good ways to cut down on failure in the chest. Unfortunately, failure in the chest means ultimately failure and lack of cure, and we have to do a better job at that. I think PORT can play a role there.
Please, when you have patients with N2 disease, after the completion of systemic therapies, think about the use of PORT and get the advice of a radiation oncologist to meet with the patient, review their clinical situation, and assess whether or not PORT could be useful for that patient.
That is following the NCCN guidelines, which were not changed on the basis of the Lung ART paper. I think we owe it to our patients to make sure that those who could benefit from this additional therapy receive it.
I’ll put it to you that radiation delivered in the most innovative way – taking very careful account of the effects on the heart – can improve local control. There’s no question about that. I think PORT has the ability to improve survival by a small amount – probably less than 12%, which I will agree the Lung ART trial showed – but still an important amount for patients with this condition.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Arial Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, speaking today about a topic that’s become quite controversial, which is
Data from clinical trials and data from a SEER study showed approximately 7% improvement in overall survival in patients with N2 disease who received PORT. There has been a very clear demonstration of an improved local control rate in every trial that’s ever looked at PORT.
However, there was a randomized trial, the Lung ART trial, where patients were randomized to get PORT or not. PORT was delivered in a way that is not routinely used now. In that trial, the benefit of PORT was found in terms of local control, almost doubling control within the mediastinum.
The difference in overall survival was less than 12%. Again, I’m not surprised to see that because the improvement in overall survival is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%. They also found an excess of deaths, probably due to cardiac causes from the radiation in the radiation arm.
However, the trial used a type of radiation not used at this point – it used conformal, but now we would use 3D. And its ability at the time of the trial to estimate and lower cardiac risk was not what it is today. Owing to the design of the trial, it was not a significant difference and has largely been interpreted as saying that the PORT doesn’t work.
First, let’s please go to the guidelines. I’m going to the ASCO guidelines, which say that patients with mediastinal disease should not routinely get PORT, but they should be routinely referred to a radiation oncologist for consideration of PORT. I don’t think anything that’s been published so far changes that.
I think each case needs to be individualized and requires the specialty care of a radiation oncologist to weigh the pros and cons of PORT. It also depends upon the treatment plan. Can the heart be spared? Are there radiation techniques available that would eliminate or lessen heart exposure, such as using protons? The point is that PORT is still needed.
When we look at the trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapy – and I’m looking particularly at the ADAURA trial where patients received adjuvant osimertinib – the greatest number of failures now is in the chest. We have to look for good ways to cut down on failure in the chest. Unfortunately, failure in the chest means ultimately failure and lack of cure, and we have to do a better job at that. I think PORT can play a role there.
Please, when you have patients with N2 disease, after the completion of systemic therapies, think about the use of PORT and get the advice of a radiation oncologist to meet with the patient, review their clinical situation, and assess whether or not PORT could be useful for that patient.
That is following the NCCN guidelines, which were not changed on the basis of the Lung ART paper. I think we owe it to our patients to make sure that those who could benefit from this additional therapy receive it.
I’ll put it to you that radiation delivered in the most innovative way – taking very careful account of the effects on the heart – can improve local control. There’s no question about that. I think PORT has the ability to improve survival by a small amount – probably less than 12%, which I will agree the Lung ART trial showed – but still an important amount for patients with this condition.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Arial Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, speaking today about a topic that’s become quite controversial, which is
Data from clinical trials and data from a SEER study showed approximately 7% improvement in overall survival in patients with N2 disease who received PORT. There has been a very clear demonstration of an improved local control rate in every trial that’s ever looked at PORT.
However, there was a randomized trial, the Lung ART trial, where patients were randomized to get PORT or not. PORT was delivered in a way that is not routinely used now. In that trial, the benefit of PORT was found in terms of local control, almost doubling control within the mediastinum.
The difference in overall survival was less than 12%. Again, I’m not surprised to see that because the improvement in overall survival is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%. They also found an excess of deaths, probably due to cardiac causes from the radiation in the radiation arm.
However, the trial used a type of radiation not used at this point – it used conformal, but now we would use 3D. And its ability at the time of the trial to estimate and lower cardiac risk was not what it is today. Owing to the design of the trial, it was not a significant difference and has largely been interpreted as saying that the PORT doesn’t work.
First, let’s please go to the guidelines. I’m going to the ASCO guidelines, which say that patients with mediastinal disease should not routinely get PORT, but they should be routinely referred to a radiation oncologist for consideration of PORT. I don’t think anything that’s been published so far changes that.
I think each case needs to be individualized and requires the specialty care of a radiation oncologist to weigh the pros and cons of PORT. It also depends upon the treatment plan. Can the heart be spared? Are there radiation techniques available that would eliminate or lessen heart exposure, such as using protons? The point is that PORT is still needed.
When we look at the trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapy – and I’m looking particularly at the ADAURA trial where patients received adjuvant osimertinib – the greatest number of failures now is in the chest. We have to look for good ways to cut down on failure in the chest. Unfortunately, failure in the chest means ultimately failure and lack of cure, and we have to do a better job at that. I think PORT can play a role there.
Please, when you have patients with N2 disease, after the completion of systemic therapies, think about the use of PORT and get the advice of a radiation oncologist to meet with the patient, review their clinical situation, and assess whether or not PORT could be useful for that patient.
That is following the NCCN guidelines, which were not changed on the basis of the Lung ART paper. I think we owe it to our patients to make sure that those who could benefit from this additional therapy receive it.
I’ll put it to you that radiation delivered in the most innovative way – taking very careful account of the effects on the heart – can improve local control. There’s no question about that. I think PORT has the ability to improve survival by a small amount – probably less than 12%, which I will agree the Lung ART trial showed – but still an important amount for patients with this condition.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Arial Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doxy PEP does not lower risk of STIs in cisgender women
The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.
“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.
The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.
The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).
Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.
In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.
Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).
Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.
The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.
None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs
The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.
“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.
The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.
Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
Adherence, anatomy, resistance
The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.
In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.
Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.
The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.
The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.
Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.
The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.
“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”
Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.
“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.
Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.
“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.
“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”
The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.
“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.
The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.
The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).
Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.
In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.
Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).
Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.
The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.
None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs
The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.
“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.
The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.
Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
Adherence, anatomy, resistance
The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.
In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.
Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.
The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.
The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.
Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.
The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.
“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”
Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.
“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.
Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.
“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.
“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”
The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.
“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.
The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.
The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).
Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.
In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.
Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).
Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.
The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.
None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs
The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.
“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.
The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.
Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
Adherence, anatomy, resistance
The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.
In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.
Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.
The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.
The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.
Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.
The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.
“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”
Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.
“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.
Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.
“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.
“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”
The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CROI 2023
Ninety-four women allege a Utah doctor sexually assaulted them. Here’s why a judge threw out their case
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune.
At 19 years old and about to be married, Stephanie Mateer went to an ob.gyn. within walking distance of her student housing near Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
She wanted to start using birth control, and she was looking for guidance about having sex for the first time on her 2008 wedding night.
Ms. Mateer was shocked, she said, when David Broadbent, MD, reached under her gown to grab and squeeze her breasts, started a vaginal exam without warning, then followed it with an extremely painful examination of her rectum.
She felt disgusted and violated, but doubt also crept in. She told herself she must have misinterpreted his actions, or that she should have known that he would do a rectal exam. Raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said she was taught to defer to men in leadership.
“I viewed him as being a man in authority,” Ms. Mateer said. “He’s a doctor.”
It was years, she said, before she learned that her experience was in a sharp contrast to the conduct called for in professional standards, including that doctors use only their fingertips during a breast exam and communicate clearly what they are doing in advance, to gain the consent of their patients. Eventually, she gave her experience another name: sexual assault.
Utah judges, however, have called it health care.
And that legal distinction means Utahns like Ms. Mateer who decide to sue a health care provider for alleged sexual abuse are treated more harshly by the court system than plaintiffs who say they were harmed in other settings.
The chance to go to civil court for damages is an important option for survivors, experts say. While a criminal conviction can provide a sense of justice, winning a lawsuit can help victims pay for the therapy and additional support they need to heal after trauma.
Ms. Mateer laid out her allegations in a lawsuit that she and 93 other women filed against Dr. Broadbent last year. But they quickly learned they would be treated differently than other sexual assault survivors.
Filing their case, which alleged the Utah County doctor sexually assaulted them over the span of his 47-year career, was an empowering moment, Ms. Mateer said. But a judge threw out the lawsuit without even considering the merits, determining that because their alleged assailant is a doctor, the case must be governed by medical malpractice rules rather than those that apply to cases of sexual assault.
Under Utah’s rules of medical malpractice, claims made by victims who allege a health care worker sexually assaulted them are literally worth less than lawsuits brought by someone who was assaulted in other settings – even if a jury rules in their favor, a judge is required to limit how much money they receive. And they must meet a shorter filing deadline.
“It’s just crazy that a doctor can sexually assault women and then be protected by the white coat,” Ms. Mateer said. “It’s just a really scary precedent to be calling sexual assault ‘health care.’ ”
Because of the judge’s ruling that leaves them with a shorter window in which to file, some of Dr. Broadbent’s accusers stand to lose their chance to sue. Others were already past that deadline but had hoped to take advantage of an exception that allows plaintiffs to sue if they can prove that the person who harmed them had covered up the wrongdoing and if they discovered they had been hurt within the previous year.
As a group, the women are appealing the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. This decision will set a precedent for future sexual assault victims in Utah.
Dr. Broadbent’s attorney, Chris Nelson, declined an interview request but wrote in an email: “We believe that the allegations against Dr. Broadbent are without merit and will present our case in court. Given that this is an active legal matter, we will not be sharing any details outside the courtroom.”
States have varying legal definitions of medical malpractice, but it’s generally described as treatment that falls short of accepted standards of care. That includes mistakes, such as a surgeon leaving a piece of gauze inside a patient.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.
Despite these state Supreme Court rulings, Utah legislators have so far not moved to narrow the wording of the malpractice act.
The lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent – and the questions it raises about the broadness of Utah’s medical malpractice laws – comes during a national reckoning with how sexual assault survivors are treated by the law. Legislators in several states have been rewriting laws to give sexual assault victims more time to sue their attackers, in response to the growing cultural understanding of the impact of trauma and the barriers to reporting. Even in Utah, those who were sexually abused as children now have no deadline to file suits against their abusers.
That isn’t true for sexual abuse in a medical setting, where cases must be filed within 2 years of the assault.
These higher hurdles should not exist in Utah, said state Sen. Mike K. McKell, a Utah County Republican who works as a personal injury attorney. He is trying to change state law to ensure that sexual assault lawsuits do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act, a law designed to cover negligence and poor care, not necessarily deliberate actions like an assault.
“Sexual assault, to me, is not medical care. Period,” he said. “It’s sad that we need to clarify that sexual assault is not medical care. But trying to tie sexual assault to a medical malpractice [filing deadline] – it’s just wrong.”
‘Your husband is a lucky man’
Ms. Mateer had gone to Dr. Broadbent in 2008 for a premarital exam, a uniquely Utah visit often scheduled by young women who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Leaders of the faith, which is predominant in Utah, focus on chastity when speaking to young, unmarried people about sex, and public schools have typically focused on abstinence-based sex education. So for some, these visits are the first place they learn about sexual health.
Young women who get premarital exams are typically given a birth control prescription, but the appointments can include care that’s less common for healthy women in other states – such as doctors giving them vaginal dilators to stretch their tissues before their wedding nights.
That’s what Ms. Mateer was expecting when she visited Dr. Broadbent’s office. The ob.gyn. had been practicing for decades in his Provo clinic nestled between student housing apartments across the street from Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Ms. Mateer was “just totally taken aback,” she said, by the painful examination and by Dr. Broadbent snapping off his gloves after the exam and saying, “Your husband is a lucky man.”
She repeated that remark in her legal filing, along with the doctor’s advice for her: If she bled during intercourse, “just do what the Boy Scouts do and apply pressure.”
“The whole thing was like I’m some object for my husband to enjoy and let him do whatever he wants,” Ms. Mateer said. “It was just very violating and not a great way to start my sexual relationship with my new husband, with these ideas in mind.”
Ms. Mateer thought back to that visit over the years, particularly when she went to other ob.gyns. for health care. Her subsequent doctors, she said, never performed a rectal exam and always explained to her what they were doing and how it would feel, and asked for her consent.
She thought about Dr. Broadbent again in 2017, as the #MeToo movement gained momentum, and looked him up online. Ms. Mateer found reviews from other women who described Dr. Broadbent doing rough examinations without warning that left them feeling the same way she had years before.
Then in December 2021, she spoke out on “Mormon Stories,” a podcast where people who have left or have questioned their Latter-day Saint faith share their life stories. In the episode, she described the painful way he examined her, how it left her feeling traumatized, and her discovery of the reviews that echoed her experience.
“He’s on University Avenue, in Provo, giving these exams to who knows how many naive Mormon 18-year-old, 19-year-old girls who are getting married. … They are naive and they don’t know what to expect,” she said on the podcast. “His name is Dr. David Broadbent.”
After the podcast aired, Ms. Mateer was flooded with messages from women who heard the episode and reached out to tell her that Dr. Broadbent had harmed them, too.
Ms. Mateer and three other women decided to sue the ob.gyn., and in the following weeks and months, 90 additional women joined the lawsuit they filed in Provo. Many of the women allege Dr. Broadbent inappropriately touched their breasts, vaginas and rectums, hurting them, without warning or explanation. Some said he used his bare hand – instead of using a speculum or gloves – during exams. One alleged that she saw he had an erection while he was touching her.
Dr. Broadbent’s actions were not medically necessary, the women allege, and were instead “performed for no other reason than his own sexual gratification.”
The lawsuit also named as defendants two hospitals where Dr. Broadbent had delivered babies and where some of the women allege they were assaulted. The suit accused hospital administrators of knowing about Dr. Broadbent’s inappropriate behavior and doing nothing about it.
After he was sued, the ob.gyn. quickly lost his privileges at the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Broadbent, now 75, has also voluntarily put his medical license in Utah on hold while police investigate 29 reports of sexual assault made against him.
Prosecutors are still considering whether to criminally prosecute Dr. Broadbent. Provo police forwarded more than a dozen reports to the Utah County attorney’s office in November, which are still being reviewed by a local prosecutor.
A spokesperson for Intermountain Health, the nonprofit health system that owns Utah Valley Hospital, where some of the women in the suit were treated, did not respond to specific questions. The spokesperson emphasized in an email that Dr. Broadbent was an “independent physician” who was not employed by Utah Valley Hospital, adding that most of the alleged incidents took place at Dr. Broadbent’s medical office.
A representative for MountainStar Healthcare, another hospital chain named as a defendant, denied knowledge of any allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to its hospital and also emphasized that Dr. Broadbent worked independently, not as an employee.
“Our position since this lawsuit was filed has been that we were inappropriately named in this suit,” said Brittany Glas, the communications director for MountainStar.
Debating whether sexual abuse is health care
For the women who sued Dr. Broadbent, their case boiled down to a key question: Were the sexual assaults they say they experienced part of their health care? There was a lot hanging on the answer.
If their case was considered medical malpractice, they would be limited in how much money they could receive in damages for their pain and suffering. If a jury awarded them millions of dollars, a judge would be required by law to cut that down to $450,000. There’s no cap on these monetary awards for victims sexually assaulted in other settings.
They would also be required to go before a panel, which includes a doctor, a lawyer and a community member, that decides whether their claims have merit. This step, aimed at resolving disputes out of court, does not block anyone from suing afterward. But it does add cost and delay, and for sexual assault victims who’ve gone through this step, it has been another time they were required to describe their experiences and hope they were believed.
The shorter, 2-year filing deadline for medical malpractice cases can also be a particular challenge for those who have been sexually abused because research shows that it’s common to delay reporting such assaults.
Nationwide, these kinds of malpractice reforms were adopted in the 1970s amid concerns – largely driven by insurance companies – that the cost of health care was rising because of frivolous lawsuits and “runaway juries” doling out multimillion-dollar payouts.
Restricting the size of malpractice awards and imposing other limits, many argued, were effective ways to balance compensating injured patients with protecting everyone’s access to health care.
State laws are generally silent on whether sexual assault lawsuits should be covered by malpractice laws, leaving courts to grapple with that question and leading to different conclusions across the country. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six cases in which state appellate judges sharply distinguished between assault and health care in considering whether malpractice laws should apply to sexual assault–related cases.
An appellate court in Wisconsin, for example, ruled in 1993 that a physician having an erection and groping a patient was a purposeful harm, not medical malpractice.
Florida’s law is similar to Utah’s, defining allegations “arising” out of medical care as malpractice. While an earlier ruling did treat sexual assault in a health care setting as medical malpractice, appellate rulings in the last decade have moved away from that interpretation. In 2005, an appellate court affirmed a lower-court ruling that when a dentist “stopped providing dental treatment to the victim and began sexually assaulting her, his professional services ended.”
Similarly, a federal judge in Iowa in 1995 weighed in on the meaning of “arising” out of health care: “Rape is not patient care activity,” he wrote.
But Utah’s malpractice law is so broad that judges have been interpreting it as covering any act performed by a health care provider during medical care. The law was passed in 1976 and is popular with doctors and other health care providers, who have lobbied to keep it in place – and who use it to get lawsuits dismissed.
One precedent-setting case in Utah shows the law’s power to safeguard health care providers and was an important test of how Utah defines medical malpractice. Jacob Scott sued WinGate Wilderness Therapy after the teen broke his leg in 2015 when a hiking guide from the center allowed him to climb up and down a steep outcrop in Utah’s red rock desert.
His parents are both lawyers, and after they found that Utah had a 4-year deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit, court records said, they decided to prioritize “getting Jacob better” for the first 2 years after the accident. But when Mr. Scott’s suit was filed, WinGate argued it was too late – based on the shorter, 2-year deadline for medical malpractice claims.
Mr. Scott’s attorneys scoffed. “Interacting with nature,” his attorneys argued, “is not health care even under the broadest interpretation of … the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.”
A judge disagreed and threw out Mr. Scott’s case. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in 2021.
“We agree with WinGate,” the justices wrote, “that it was acting as a ‘health care provider’ and providing ‘health care’ when Jacob was hiking and rock climbing.”
Last summer, the women who had sued Dr. Broadbent and the two hospitals watched online as lawyers debated whether the abuse they allegedly suffered was health care.
At the hearing, attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued that the women should have pursued a medical malpractice case, which required them to first notify Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals that they wanted to sue. They also argued to Judge Robert Lunnen that the case couldn’t move forward because the women hadn’t gone before a prelitigation panel.
Attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued, one after the other, that the painful and traumatic exams the women described arose out of health care treatments.
“Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true – as we must for purposes of this proceeding – we have to assume that [Broadbent] did something that was medically unnecessary, medically inappropriate,” argued David Jordan, a lawyer for Intermountain Health.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an act performed to a patient, during the patient’s treatment,” he said. “Because that’s what the patient is doing in the doctor’s office. They’re there for treatment.”
The attorney team for the women pushed back. Terry Rooney argued that if Dr. Broadbent’s actions fell under medical malpractice laws, many women would be knocked out of the case because of the age of their claims, and those who remained would be limited in the amount of money in damages they could receive.
“That’s really what this is about,” he argued. “And so it’s troubling – quite frankly it’s shocking to me – that we’re debating heavily the question of whether sexual abuse is health care.”
The judge mulled the issue for months. Judge Lunnen wrote in a September ruling that if the allegations were true, Dr. Broadbent’s treatment of his patients was “insensitive, disrespectful and degrading.”
But Utah law is clear, he said. Malpractice law covers any act or treatment performed by any health care provider during the patient’s medical care. The women had all been seeking health care, Judge Lunnen wrote, and Dr. Broadbent was providing that when the alleged assaults happened.
Their lawsuit was dismissed.
‘I felt defeated’
Brooke, another plaintiff who alleges Dr. Broadbent groped her, remembers feeling sick on the June day she watched the attorneys arguing. She asked to be identified by only her first name for this story.
She alleges Dr. Broadbent violated her in December 2008 while she was hospitalized after experiencing complications with her first pregnancy.
The nearest hospital to her rural town didn’t have a special unit to take care of premature babies, and her doctors feared she might need to deliver her son 6 weeks early. So Brooke had been rushed by ambulance over a mountain pass in a snowstorm to Utah Valley Hospital.
Brooke and her husband were terrified, she said, when they arrived at the Provo hospital. Dr. Broadbent happened to be the doctor on call. With Brooke’s husband and brother-in-law in the room, Dr. Broadbent examined her late that evening, she said, listening to her chest with a stethoscope.
The doctor then suddenly grabbed her breasts, she recalled – his movements causing her hospital gown to fall to expose her chest. She recounted this experience in her lawsuit, saying it was nothing like the breast exams she has had since.
“It was really traumatizing,” she said. “I was mortified. My husband and brother-in-law – we just didn’t say anything about it because it was so uncomfortable.”
Brooke voiced concerns to the nurse manager, and she was assigned a new doctor.
She gave birth to a healthy baby a little more than a month later, at the hospital near her home.
Hearing the judge’s ruling 14 years later, Brooke felt the decision revealed how Utah’s laws are broken.
“I was frustrated,” she said, “and I felt defeated. … I thought justice is not on our side with this.”
If the Utah Supreme Court rules that these alleged sexual assaults should legally be considered health care, the women will likely refile their claims as a medical malpractice lawsuit, said their attorney, Adam Sorensen. But it would be a challenge to keep all 94 women in the case, he said, due to the shorter filing window. Only two women in the lawsuit allege that they were harmed within the last 2 years.
The legal team for the women would have to convince a judge that their claims should still be allowed because they only recently discovered they were harmed. But based on previous rulings, Mr. Sorensen believes the women will have a better chance to win that argument if the civil suit remained a sexual assault case.
Regardless of what happens in their legal case, the decision by Brooke and the other women to come forward could help change state law for victims who come after them.
Recently, Mr. McKell, the state senator, introduced legislation to clarify that civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault by a health care worker do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act.
“I don’t think it’s a close call. Sexual assault is not medical care,” he said. “I know we’ve got some bizarre rulings that have come down through our courts in Utah.”
Both an association of Utah trial lawyers and the Utah Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s physicians, support this reform.
“We support the fact that sexual assault should not be part of health care medical malpractice,” said Michelle McOmber, the CEO for the Utah Medical Association. “Sexual assault should be sexual assault, regardless of where it happens or who’s doing it. Sexual assault should be in that category, which is separate from actual health care. Because it’s not health care.”
MountainStar doesn’t have a position on the bill, Ms. Glas said. “If the laws were to change via new legislation and/or interpretation by the courts, we would abide by and comply with those new laws.”
But lawmakers are running out of time. With only a short time left in Utah’s legislative session, state senate and house leaders have so far prioritized passing new laws banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and creating a controversial school voucher program that will provide taxpayer funds for students to attend private school.
Utah lawmakers were also expected to consider a dramatic change for other sexual assault victims: a bill that would remove filing deadlines for civil lawsuits brought by people abused as adults. But that bill stalled before it could be debated.
Brooke had been eager to share her story, she said, in hopes it would help the first four women who’d come forward bolster their lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent. She later joined the case as a plaintiff. She read in their lawsuit about one woman who complained about him to the same hospital 7 years before she did, and about another woman who said Dr. Broadbent similarly molested her 2 days after Brooke had expressed her own concern.
“That bothered me so much,” she said. “It didn’t have to happen to all these women.”
Brooke doubts she’ll get vindication in a courtroom. Justice for her, she suspects, won’t come in the form of a legal ruling or a settlement against the doctor she says hurt her years ago.
Instead, she said, “maybe justice looks like changing the laws for future women.”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune.
At 19 years old and about to be married, Stephanie Mateer went to an ob.gyn. within walking distance of her student housing near Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
She wanted to start using birth control, and she was looking for guidance about having sex for the first time on her 2008 wedding night.
Ms. Mateer was shocked, she said, when David Broadbent, MD, reached under her gown to grab and squeeze her breasts, started a vaginal exam without warning, then followed it with an extremely painful examination of her rectum.
She felt disgusted and violated, but doubt also crept in. She told herself she must have misinterpreted his actions, or that she should have known that he would do a rectal exam. Raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said she was taught to defer to men in leadership.
“I viewed him as being a man in authority,” Ms. Mateer said. “He’s a doctor.”
It was years, she said, before she learned that her experience was in a sharp contrast to the conduct called for in professional standards, including that doctors use only their fingertips during a breast exam and communicate clearly what they are doing in advance, to gain the consent of their patients. Eventually, she gave her experience another name: sexual assault.
Utah judges, however, have called it health care.
And that legal distinction means Utahns like Ms. Mateer who decide to sue a health care provider for alleged sexual abuse are treated more harshly by the court system than plaintiffs who say they were harmed in other settings.
The chance to go to civil court for damages is an important option for survivors, experts say. While a criminal conviction can provide a sense of justice, winning a lawsuit can help victims pay for the therapy and additional support they need to heal after trauma.
Ms. Mateer laid out her allegations in a lawsuit that she and 93 other women filed against Dr. Broadbent last year. But they quickly learned they would be treated differently than other sexual assault survivors.
Filing their case, which alleged the Utah County doctor sexually assaulted them over the span of his 47-year career, was an empowering moment, Ms. Mateer said. But a judge threw out the lawsuit without even considering the merits, determining that because their alleged assailant is a doctor, the case must be governed by medical malpractice rules rather than those that apply to cases of sexual assault.
Under Utah’s rules of medical malpractice, claims made by victims who allege a health care worker sexually assaulted them are literally worth less than lawsuits brought by someone who was assaulted in other settings – even if a jury rules in their favor, a judge is required to limit how much money they receive. And they must meet a shorter filing deadline.
“It’s just crazy that a doctor can sexually assault women and then be protected by the white coat,” Ms. Mateer said. “It’s just a really scary precedent to be calling sexual assault ‘health care.’ ”
Because of the judge’s ruling that leaves them with a shorter window in which to file, some of Dr. Broadbent’s accusers stand to lose their chance to sue. Others were already past that deadline but had hoped to take advantage of an exception that allows plaintiffs to sue if they can prove that the person who harmed them had covered up the wrongdoing and if they discovered they had been hurt within the previous year.
As a group, the women are appealing the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. This decision will set a precedent for future sexual assault victims in Utah.
Dr. Broadbent’s attorney, Chris Nelson, declined an interview request but wrote in an email: “We believe that the allegations against Dr. Broadbent are without merit and will present our case in court. Given that this is an active legal matter, we will not be sharing any details outside the courtroom.”
States have varying legal definitions of medical malpractice, but it’s generally described as treatment that falls short of accepted standards of care. That includes mistakes, such as a surgeon leaving a piece of gauze inside a patient.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.
Despite these state Supreme Court rulings, Utah legislators have so far not moved to narrow the wording of the malpractice act.
The lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent – and the questions it raises about the broadness of Utah’s medical malpractice laws – comes during a national reckoning with how sexual assault survivors are treated by the law. Legislators in several states have been rewriting laws to give sexual assault victims more time to sue their attackers, in response to the growing cultural understanding of the impact of trauma and the barriers to reporting. Even in Utah, those who were sexually abused as children now have no deadline to file suits against their abusers.
That isn’t true for sexual abuse in a medical setting, where cases must be filed within 2 years of the assault.
These higher hurdles should not exist in Utah, said state Sen. Mike K. McKell, a Utah County Republican who works as a personal injury attorney. He is trying to change state law to ensure that sexual assault lawsuits do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act, a law designed to cover negligence and poor care, not necessarily deliberate actions like an assault.
“Sexual assault, to me, is not medical care. Period,” he said. “It’s sad that we need to clarify that sexual assault is not medical care. But trying to tie sexual assault to a medical malpractice [filing deadline] – it’s just wrong.”
‘Your husband is a lucky man’
Ms. Mateer had gone to Dr. Broadbent in 2008 for a premarital exam, a uniquely Utah visit often scheduled by young women who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Leaders of the faith, which is predominant in Utah, focus on chastity when speaking to young, unmarried people about sex, and public schools have typically focused on abstinence-based sex education. So for some, these visits are the first place they learn about sexual health.
Young women who get premarital exams are typically given a birth control prescription, but the appointments can include care that’s less common for healthy women in other states – such as doctors giving them vaginal dilators to stretch their tissues before their wedding nights.
That’s what Ms. Mateer was expecting when she visited Dr. Broadbent’s office. The ob.gyn. had been practicing for decades in his Provo clinic nestled between student housing apartments across the street from Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Ms. Mateer was “just totally taken aback,” she said, by the painful examination and by Dr. Broadbent snapping off his gloves after the exam and saying, “Your husband is a lucky man.”
She repeated that remark in her legal filing, along with the doctor’s advice for her: If she bled during intercourse, “just do what the Boy Scouts do and apply pressure.”
“The whole thing was like I’m some object for my husband to enjoy and let him do whatever he wants,” Ms. Mateer said. “It was just very violating and not a great way to start my sexual relationship with my new husband, with these ideas in mind.”
Ms. Mateer thought back to that visit over the years, particularly when she went to other ob.gyns. for health care. Her subsequent doctors, she said, never performed a rectal exam and always explained to her what they were doing and how it would feel, and asked for her consent.
She thought about Dr. Broadbent again in 2017, as the #MeToo movement gained momentum, and looked him up online. Ms. Mateer found reviews from other women who described Dr. Broadbent doing rough examinations without warning that left them feeling the same way she had years before.
Then in December 2021, she spoke out on “Mormon Stories,” a podcast where people who have left or have questioned their Latter-day Saint faith share their life stories. In the episode, she described the painful way he examined her, how it left her feeling traumatized, and her discovery of the reviews that echoed her experience.
“He’s on University Avenue, in Provo, giving these exams to who knows how many naive Mormon 18-year-old, 19-year-old girls who are getting married. … They are naive and they don’t know what to expect,” she said on the podcast. “His name is Dr. David Broadbent.”
After the podcast aired, Ms. Mateer was flooded with messages from women who heard the episode and reached out to tell her that Dr. Broadbent had harmed them, too.
Ms. Mateer and three other women decided to sue the ob.gyn., and in the following weeks and months, 90 additional women joined the lawsuit they filed in Provo. Many of the women allege Dr. Broadbent inappropriately touched their breasts, vaginas and rectums, hurting them, without warning or explanation. Some said he used his bare hand – instead of using a speculum or gloves – during exams. One alleged that she saw he had an erection while he was touching her.
Dr. Broadbent’s actions were not medically necessary, the women allege, and were instead “performed for no other reason than his own sexual gratification.”
The lawsuit also named as defendants two hospitals where Dr. Broadbent had delivered babies and where some of the women allege they were assaulted. The suit accused hospital administrators of knowing about Dr. Broadbent’s inappropriate behavior and doing nothing about it.
After he was sued, the ob.gyn. quickly lost his privileges at the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Broadbent, now 75, has also voluntarily put his medical license in Utah on hold while police investigate 29 reports of sexual assault made against him.
Prosecutors are still considering whether to criminally prosecute Dr. Broadbent. Provo police forwarded more than a dozen reports to the Utah County attorney’s office in November, which are still being reviewed by a local prosecutor.
A spokesperson for Intermountain Health, the nonprofit health system that owns Utah Valley Hospital, where some of the women in the suit were treated, did not respond to specific questions. The spokesperson emphasized in an email that Dr. Broadbent was an “independent physician” who was not employed by Utah Valley Hospital, adding that most of the alleged incidents took place at Dr. Broadbent’s medical office.
A representative for MountainStar Healthcare, another hospital chain named as a defendant, denied knowledge of any allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to its hospital and also emphasized that Dr. Broadbent worked independently, not as an employee.
“Our position since this lawsuit was filed has been that we were inappropriately named in this suit,” said Brittany Glas, the communications director for MountainStar.
Debating whether sexual abuse is health care
For the women who sued Dr. Broadbent, their case boiled down to a key question: Were the sexual assaults they say they experienced part of their health care? There was a lot hanging on the answer.
If their case was considered medical malpractice, they would be limited in how much money they could receive in damages for their pain and suffering. If a jury awarded them millions of dollars, a judge would be required by law to cut that down to $450,000. There’s no cap on these monetary awards for victims sexually assaulted in other settings.
They would also be required to go before a panel, which includes a doctor, a lawyer and a community member, that decides whether their claims have merit. This step, aimed at resolving disputes out of court, does not block anyone from suing afterward. But it does add cost and delay, and for sexual assault victims who’ve gone through this step, it has been another time they were required to describe their experiences and hope they were believed.
The shorter, 2-year filing deadline for medical malpractice cases can also be a particular challenge for those who have been sexually abused because research shows that it’s common to delay reporting such assaults.
Nationwide, these kinds of malpractice reforms were adopted in the 1970s amid concerns – largely driven by insurance companies – that the cost of health care was rising because of frivolous lawsuits and “runaway juries” doling out multimillion-dollar payouts.
Restricting the size of malpractice awards and imposing other limits, many argued, were effective ways to balance compensating injured patients with protecting everyone’s access to health care.
State laws are generally silent on whether sexual assault lawsuits should be covered by malpractice laws, leaving courts to grapple with that question and leading to different conclusions across the country. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six cases in which state appellate judges sharply distinguished between assault and health care in considering whether malpractice laws should apply to sexual assault–related cases.
An appellate court in Wisconsin, for example, ruled in 1993 that a physician having an erection and groping a patient was a purposeful harm, not medical malpractice.
Florida’s law is similar to Utah’s, defining allegations “arising” out of medical care as malpractice. While an earlier ruling did treat sexual assault in a health care setting as medical malpractice, appellate rulings in the last decade have moved away from that interpretation. In 2005, an appellate court affirmed a lower-court ruling that when a dentist “stopped providing dental treatment to the victim and began sexually assaulting her, his professional services ended.”
Similarly, a federal judge in Iowa in 1995 weighed in on the meaning of “arising” out of health care: “Rape is not patient care activity,” he wrote.
But Utah’s malpractice law is so broad that judges have been interpreting it as covering any act performed by a health care provider during medical care. The law was passed in 1976 and is popular with doctors and other health care providers, who have lobbied to keep it in place – and who use it to get lawsuits dismissed.
One precedent-setting case in Utah shows the law’s power to safeguard health care providers and was an important test of how Utah defines medical malpractice. Jacob Scott sued WinGate Wilderness Therapy after the teen broke his leg in 2015 when a hiking guide from the center allowed him to climb up and down a steep outcrop in Utah’s red rock desert.
His parents are both lawyers, and after they found that Utah had a 4-year deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit, court records said, they decided to prioritize “getting Jacob better” for the first 2 years after the accident. But when Mr. Scott’s suit was filed, WinGate argued it was too late – based on the shorter, 2-year deadline for medical malpractice claims.
Mr. Scott’s attorneys scoffed. “Interacting with nature,” his attorneys argued, “is not health care even under the broadest interpretation of … the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.”
A judge disagreed and threw out Mr. Scott’s case. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in 2021.
“We agree with WinGate,” the justices wrote, “that it was acting as a ‘health care provider’ and providing ‘health care’ when Jacob was hiking and rock climbing.”
Last summer, the women who had sued Dr. Broadbent and the two hospitals watched online as lawyers debated whether the abuse they allegedly suffered was health care.
At the hearing, attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued that the women should have pursued a medical malpractice case, which required them to first notify Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals that they wanted to sue. They also argued to Judge Robert Lunnen that the case couldn’t move forward because the women hadn’t gone before a prelitigation panel.
Attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued, one after the other, that the painful and traumatic exams the women described arose out of health care treatments.
“Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true – as we must for purposes of this proceeding – we have to assume that [Broadbent] did something that was medically unnecessary, medically inappropriate,” argued David Jordan, a lawyer for Intermountain Health.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an act performed to a patient, during the patient’s treatment,” he said. “Because that’s what the patient is doing in the doctor’s office. They’re there for treatment.”
The attorney team for the women pushed back. Terry Rooney argued that if Dr. Broadbent’s actions fell under medical malpractice laws, many women would be knocked out of the case because of the age of their claims, and those who remained would be limited in the amount of money in damages they could receive.
“That’s really what this is about,” he argued. “And so it’s troubling – quite frankly it’s shocking to me – that we’re debating heavily the question of whether sexual abuse is health care.”
The judge mulled the issue for months. Judge Lunnen wrote in a September ruling that if the allegations were true, Dr. Broadbent’s treatment of his patients was “insensitive, disrespectful and degrading.”
But Utah law is clear, he said. Malpractice law covers any act or treatment performed by any health care provider during the patient’s medical care. The women had all been seeking health care, Judge Lunnen wrote, and Dr. Broadbent was providing that when the alleged assaults happened.
Their lawsuit was dismissed.
‘I felt defeated’
Brooke, another plaintiff who alleges Dr. Broadbent groped her, remembers feeling sick on the June day she watched the attorneys arguing. She asked to be identified by only her first name for this story.
She alleges Dr. Broadbent violated her in December 2008 while she was hospitalized after experiencing complications with her first pregnancy.
The nearest hospital to her rural town didn’t have a special unit to take care of premature babies, and her doctors feared she might need to deliver her son 6 weeks early. So Brooke had been rushed by ambulance over a mountain pass in a snowstorm to Utah Valley Hospital.
Brooke and her husband were terrified, she said, when they arrived at the Provo hospital. Dr. Broadbent happened to be the doctor on call. With Brooke’s husband and brother-in-law in the room, Dr. Broadbent examined her late that evening, she said, listening to her chest with a stethoscope.
The doctor then suddenly grabbed her breasts, she recalled – his movements causing her hospital gown to fall to expose her chest. She recounted this experience in her lawsuit, saying it was nothing like the breast exams she has had since.
“It was really traumatizing,” she said. “I was mortified. My husband and brother-in-law – we just didn’t say anything about it because it was so uncomfortable.”
Brooke voiced concerns to the nurse manager, and she was assigned a new doctor.
She gave birth to a healthy baby a little more than a month later, at the hospital near her home.
Hearing the judge’s ruling 14 years later, Brooke felt the decision revealed how Utah’s laws are broken.
“I was frustrated,” she said, “and I felt defeated. … I thought justice is not on our side with this.”
If the Utah Supreme Court rules that these alleged sexual assaults should legally be considered health care, the women will likely refile their claims as a medical malpractice lawsuit, said their attorney, Adam Sorensen. But it would be a challenge to keep all 94 women in the case, he said, due to the shorter filing window. Only two women in the lawsuit allege that they were harmed within the last 2 years.
The legal team for the women would have to convince a judge that their claims should still be allowed because they only recently discovered they were harmed. But based on previous rulings, Mr. Sorensen believes the women will have a better chance to win that argument if the civil suit remained a sexual assault case.
Regardless of what happens in their legal case, the decision by Brooke and the other women to come forward could help change state law for victims who come after them.
Recently, Mr. McKell, the state senator, introduced legislation to clarify that civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault by a health care worker do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act.
“I don’t think it’s a close call. Sexual assault is not medical care,” he said. “I know we’ve got some bizarre rulings that have come down through our courts in Utah.”
Both an association of Utah trial lawyers and the Utah Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s physicians, support this reform.
“We support the fact that sexual assault should not be part of health care medical malpractice,” said Michelle McOmber, the CEO for the Utah Medical Association. “Sexual assault should be sexual assault, regardless of where it happens or who’s doing it. Sexual assault should be in that category, which is separate from actual health care. Because it’s not health care.”
MountainStar doesn’t have a position on the bill, Ms. Glas said. “If the laws were to change via new legislation and/or interpretation by the courts, we would abide by and comply with those new laws.”
But lawmakers are running out of time. With only a short time left in Utah’s legislative session, state senate and house leaders have so far prioritized passing new laws banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and creating a controversial school voucher program that will provide taxpayer funds for students to attend private school.
Utah lawmakers were also expected to consider a dramatic change for other sexual assault victims: a bill that would remove filing deadlines for civil lawsuits brought by people abused as adults. But that bill stalled before it could be debated.
Brooke had been eager to share her story, she said, in hopes it would help the first four women who’d come forward bolster their lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent. She later joined the case as a plaintiff. She read in their lawsuit about one woman who complained about him to the same hospital 7 years before she did, and about another woman who said Dr. Broadbent similarly molested her 2 days after Brooke had expressed her own concern.
“That bothered me so much,” she said. “It didn’t have to happen to all these women.”
Brooke doubts she’ll get vindication in a courtroom. Justice for her, she suspects, won’t come in the form of a legal ruling or a settlement against the doctor she says hurt her years ago.
Instead, she said, “maybe justice looks like changing the laws for future women.”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune.
At 19 years old and about to be married, Stephanie Mateer went to an ob.gyn. within walking distance of her student housing near Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
She wanted to start using birth control, and she was looking for guidance about having sex for the first time on her 2008 wedding night.
Ms. Mateer was shocked, she said, when David Broadbent, MD, reached under her gown to grab and squeeze her breasts, started a vaginal exam without warning, then followed it with an extremely painful examination of her rectum.
She felt disgusted and violated, but doubt also crept in. She told herself she must have misinterpreted his actions, or that she should have known that he would do a rectal exam. Raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said she was taught to defer to men in leadership.
“I viewed him as being a man in authority,” Ms. Mateer said. “He’s a doctor.”
It was years, she said, before she learned that her experience was in a sharp contrast to the conduct called for in professional standards, including that doctors use only their fingertips during a breast exam and communicate clearly what they are doing in advance, to gain the consent of their patients. Eventually, she gave her experience another name: sexual assault.
Utah judges, however, have called it health care.
And that legal distinction means Utahns like Ms. Mateer who decide to sue a health care provider for alleged sexual abuse are treated more harshly by the court system than plaintiffs who say they were harmed in other settings.
The chance to go to civil court for damages is an important option for survivors, experts say. While a criminal conviction can provide a sense of justice, winning a lawsuit can help victims pay for the therapy and additional support they need to heal after trauma.
Ms. Mateer laid out her allegations in a lawsuit that she and 93 other women filed against Dr. Broadbent last year. But they quickly learned they would be treated differently than other sexual assault survivors.
Filing their case, which alleged the Utah County doctor sexually assaulted them over the span of his 47-year career, was an empowering moment, Ms. Mateer said. But a judge threw out the lawsuit without even considering the merits, determining that because their alleged assailant is a doctor, the case must be governed by medical malpractice rules rather than those that apply to cases of sexual assault.
Under Utah’s rules of medical malpractice, claims made by victims who allege a health care worker sexually assaulted them are literally worth less than lawsuits brought by someone who was assaulted in other settings – even if a jury rules in their favor, a judge is required to limit how much money they receive. And they must meet a shorter filing deadline.
“It’s just crazy that a doctor can sexually assault women and then be protected by the white coat,” Ms. Mateer said. “It’s just a really scary precedent to be calling sexual assault ‘health care.’ ”
Because of the judge’s ruling that leaves them with a shorter window in which to file, some of Dr. Broadbent’s accusers stand to lose their chance to sue. Others were already past that deadline but had hoped to take advantage of an exception that allows plaintiffs to sue if they can prove that the person who harmed them had covered up the wrongdoing and if they discovered they had been hurt within the previous year.
As a group, the women are appealing the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. This decision will set a precedent for future sexual assault victims in Utah.
Dr. Broadbent’s attorney, Chris Nelson, declined an interview request but wrote in an email: “We believe that the allegations against Dr. Broadbent are without merit and will present our case in court. Given that this is an active legal matter, we will not be sharing any details outside the courtroom.”
States have varying legal definitions of medical malpractice, but it’s generally described as treatment that falls short of accepted standards of care. That includes mistakes, such as a surgeon leaving a piece of gauze inside a patient.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.
Despite these state Supreme Court rulings, Utah legislators have so far not moved to narrow the wording of the malpractice act.
The lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent – and the questions it raises about the broadness of Utah’s medical malpractice laws – comes during a national reckoning with how sexual assault survivors are treated by the law. Legislators in several states have been rewriting laws to give sexual assault victims more time to sue their attackers, in response to the growing cultural understanding of the impact of trauma and the barriers to reporting. Even in Utah, those who were sexually abused as children now have no deadline to file suits against their abusers.
That isn’t true for sexual abuse in a medical setting, where cases must be filed within 2 years of the assault.
These higher hurdles should not exist in Utah, said state Sen. Mike K. McKell, a Utah County Republican who works as a personal injury attorney. He is trying to change state law to ensure that sexual assault lawsuits do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act, a law designed to cover negligence and poor care, not necessarily deliberate actions like an assault.
“Sexual assault, to me, is not medical care. Period,” he said. “It’s sad that we need to clarify that sexual assault is not medical care. But trying to tie sexual assault to a medical malpractice [filing deadline] – it’s just wrong.”
‘Your husband is a lucky man’
Ms. Mateer had gone to Dr. Broadbent in 2008 for a premarital exam, a uniquely Utah visit often scheduled by young women who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Leaders of the faith, which is predominant in Utah, focus on chastity when speaking to young, unmarried people about sex, and public schools have typically focused on abstinence-based sex education. So for some, these visits are the first place they learn about sexual health.
Young women who get premarital exams are typically given a birth control prescription, but the appointments can include care that’s less common for healthy women in other states – such as doctors giving them vaginal dilators to stretch their tissues before their wedding nights.
That’s what Ms. Mateer was expecting when she visited Dr. Broadbent’s office. The ob.gyn. had been practicing for decades in his Provo clinic nestled between student housing apartments across the street from Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Ms. Mateer was “just totally taken aback,” she said, by the painful examination and by Dr. Broadbent snapping off his gloves after the exam and saying, “Your husband is a lucky man.”
She repeated that remark in her legal filing, along with the doctor’s advice for her: If she bled during intercourse, “just do what the Boy Scouts do and apply pressure.”
“The whole thing was like I’m some object for my husband to enjoy and let him do whatever he wants,” Ms. Mateer said. “It was just very violating and not a great way to start my sexual relationship with my new husband, with these ideas in mind.”
Ms. Mateer thought back to that visit over the years, particularly when she went to other ob.gyns. for health care. Her subsequent doctors, she said, never performed a rectal exam and always explained to her what they were doing and how it would feel, and asked for her consent.
She thought about Dr. Broadbent again in 2017, as the #MeToo movement gained momentum, and looked him up online. Ms. Mateer found reviews from other women who described Dr. Broadbent doing rough examinations without warning that left them feeling the same way she had years before.
Then in December 2021, she spoke out on “Mormon Stories,” a podcast where people who have left or have questioned their Latter-day Saint faith share their life stories. In the episode, she described the painful way he examined her, how it left her feeling traumatized, and her discovery of the reviews that echoed her experience.
“He’s on University Avenue, in Provo, giving these exams to who knows how many naive Mormon 18-year-old, 19-year-old girls who are getting married. … They are naive and they don’t know what to expect,” she said on the podcast. “His name is Dr. David Broadbent.”
After the podcast aired, Ms. Mateer was flooded with messages from women who heard the episode and reached out to tell her that Dr. Broadbent had harmed them, too.
Ms. Mateer and three other women decided to sue the ob.gyn., and in the following weeks and months, 90 additional women joined the lawsuit they filed in Provo. Many of the women allege Dr. Broadbent inappropriately touched their breasts, vaginas and rectums, hurting them, without warning or explanation. Some said he used his bare hand – instead of using a speculum or gloves – during exams. One alleged that she saw he had an erection while he was touching her.
Dr. Broadbent’s actions were not medically necessary, the women allege, and were instead “performed for no other reason than his own sexual gratification.”
The lawsuit also named as defendants two hospitals where Dr. Broadbent had delivered babies and where some of the women allege they were assaulted. The suit accused hospital administrators of knowing about Dr. Broadbent’s inappropriate behavior and doing nothing about it.
After he was sued, the ob.gyn. quickly lost his privileges at the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Broadbent, now 75, has also voluntarily put his medical license in Utah on hold while police investigate 29 reports of sexual assault made against him.
Prosecutors are still considering whether to criminally prosecute Dr. Broadbent. Provo police forwarded more than a dozen reports to the Utah County attorney’s office in November, which are still being reviewed by a local prosecutor.
A spokesperson for Intermountain Health, the nonprofit health system that owns Utah Valley Hospital, where some of the women in the suit were treated, did not respond to specific questions. The spokesperson emphasized in an email that Dr. Broadbent was an “independent physician” who was not employed by Utah Valley Hospital, adding that most of the alleged incidents took place at Dr. Broadbent’s medical office.
A representative for MountainStar Healthcare, another hospital chain named as a defendant, denied knowledge of any allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to its hospital and also emphasized that Dr. Broadbent worked independently, not as an employee.
“Our position since this lawsuit was filed has been that we were inappropriately named in this suit,” said Brittany Glas, the communications director for MountainStar.
Debating whether sexual abuse is health care
For the women who sued Dr. Broadbent, their case boiled down to a key question: Were the sexual assaults they say they experienced part of their health care? There was a lot hanging on the answer.
If their case was considered medical malpractice, they would be limited in how much money they could receive in damages for their pain and suffering. If a jury awarded them millions of dollars, a judge would be required by law to cut that down to $450,000. There’s no cap on these monetary awards for victims sexually assaulted in other settings.
They would also be required to go before a panel, which includes a doctor, a lawyer and a community member, that decides whether their claims have merit. This step, aimed at resolving disputes out of court, does not block anyone from suing afterward. But it does add cost and delay, and for sexual assault victims who’ve gone through this step, it has been another time they were required to describe their experiences and hope they were believed.
The shorter, 2-year filing deadline for medical malpractice cases can also be a particular challenge for those who have been sexually abused because research shows that it’s common to delay reporting such assaults.
Nationwide, these kinds of malpractice reforms were adopted in the 1970s amid concerns – largely driven by insurance companies – that the cost of health care was rising because of frivolous lawsuits and “runaway juries” doling out multimillion-dollar payouts.
Restricting the size of malpractice awards and imposing other limits, many argued, were effective ways to balance compensating injured patients with protecting everyone’s access to health care.
State laws are generally silent on whether sexual assault lawsuits should be covered by malpractice laws, leaving courts to grapple with that question and leading to different conclusions across the country. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six cases in which state appellate judges sharply distinguished between assault and health care in considering whether malpractice laws should apply to sexual assault–related cases.
An appellate court in Wisconsin, for example, ruled in 1993 that a physician having an erection and groping a patient was a purposeful harm, not medical malpractice.
Florida’s law is similar to Utah’s, defining allegations “arising” out of medical care as malpractice. While an earlier ruling did treat sexual assault in a health care setting as medical malpractice, appellate rulings in the last decade have moved away from that interpretation. In 2005, an appellate court affirmed a lower-court ruling that when a dentist “stopped providing dental treatment to the victim and began sexually assaulting her, his professional services ended.”
Similarly, a federal judge in Iowa in 1995 weighed in on the meaning of “arising” out of health care: “Rape is not patient care activity,” he wrote.
But Utah’s malpractice law is so broad that judges have been interpreting it as covering any act performed by a health care provider during medical care. The law was passed in 1976 and is popular with doctors and other health care providers, who have lobbied to keep it in place – and who use it to get lawsuits dismissed.
One precedent-setting case in Utah shows the law’s power to safeguard health care providers and was an important test of how Utah defines medical malpractice. Jacob Scott sued WinGate Wilderness Therapy after the teen broke his leg in 2015 when a hiking guide from the center allowed him to climb up and down a steep outcrop in Utah’s red rock desert.
His parents are both lawyers, and after they found that Utah had a 4-year deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit, court records said, they decided to prioritize “getting Jacob better” for the first 2 years after the accident. But when Mr. Scott’s suit was filed, WinGate argued it was too late – based on the shorter, 2-year deadline for medical malpractice claims.
Mr. Scott’s attorneys scoffed. “Interacting with nature,” his attorneys argued, “is not health care even under the broadest interpretation of … the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.”
A judge disagreed and threw out Mr. Scott’s case. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in 2021.
“We agree with WinGate,” the justices wrote, “that it was acting as a ‘health care provider’ and providing ‘health care’ when Jacob was hiking and rock climbing.”
Last summer, the women who had sued Dr. Broadbent and the two hospitals watched online as lawyers debated whether the abuse they allegedly suffered was health care.
At the hearing, attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued that the women should have pursued a medical malpractice case, which required them to first notify Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals that they wanted to sue. They also argued to Judge Robert Lunnen that the case couldn’t move forward because the women hadn’t gone before a prelitigation panel.
Attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued, one after the other, that the painful and traumatic exams the women described arose out of health care treatments.
“Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true – as we must for purposes of this proceeding – we have to assume that [Broadbent] did something that was medically unnecessary, medically inappropriate,” argued David Jordan, a lawyer for Intermountain Health.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an act performed to a patient, during the patient’s treatment,” he said. “Because that’s what the patient is doing in the doctor’s office. They’re there for treatment.”
The attorney team for the women pushed back. Terry Rooney argued that if Dr. Broadbent’s actions fell under medical malpractice laws, many women would be knocked out of the case because of the age of their claims, and those who remained would be limited in the amount of money in damages they could receive.
“That’s really what this is about,” he argued. “And so it’s troubling – quite frankly it’s shocking to me – that we’re debating heavily the question of whether sexual abuse is health care.”
The judge mulled the issue for months. Judge Lunnen wrote in a September ruling that if the allegations were true, Dr. Broadbent’s treatment of his patients was “insensitive, disrespectful and degrading.”
But Utah law is clear, he said. Malpractice law covers any act or treatment performed by any health care provider during the patient’s medical care. The women had all been seeking health care, Judge Lunnen wrote, and Dr. Broadbent was providing that when the alleged assaults happened.
Their lawsuit was dismissed.
‘I felt defeated’
Brooke, another plaintiff who alleges Dr. Broadbent groped her, remembers feeling sick on the June day she watched the attorneys arguing. She asked to be identified by only her first name for this story.
She alleges Dr. Broadbent violated her in December 2008 while she was hospitalized after experiencing complications with her first pregnancy.
The nearest hospital to her rural town didn’t have a special unit to take care of premature babies, and her doctors feared she might need to deliver her son 6 weeks early. So Brooke had been rushed by ambulance over a mountain pass in a snowstorm to Utah Valley Hospital.
Brooke and her husband were terrified, she said, when they arrived at the Provo hospital. Dr. Broadbent happened to be the doctor on call. With Brooke’s husband and brother-in-law in the room, Dr. Broadbent examined her late that evening, she said, listening to her chest with a stethoscope.
The doctor then suddenly grabbed her breasts, she recalled – his movements causing her hospital gown to fall to expose her chest. She recounted this experience in her lawsuit, saying it was nothing like the breast exams she has had since.
“It was really traumatizing,” she said. “I was mortified. My husband and brother-in-law – we just didn’t say anything about it because it was so uncomfortable.”
Brooke voiced concerns to the nurse manager, and she was assigned a new doctor.
She gave birth to a healthy baby a little more than a month later, at the hospital near her home.
Hearing the judge’s ruling 14 years later, Brooke felt the decision revealed how Utah’s laws are broken.
“I was frustrated,” she said, “and I felt defeated. … I thought justice is not on our side with this.”
If the Utah Supreme Court rules that these alleged sexual assaults should legally be considered health care, the women will likely refile their claims as a medical malpractice lawsuit, said their attorney, Adam Sorensen. But it would be a challenge to keep all 94 women in the case, he said, due to the shorter filing window. Only two women in the lawsuit allege that they were harmed within the last 2 years.
The legal team for the women would have to convince a judge that their claims should still be allowed because they only recently discovered they were harmed. But based on previous rulings, Mr. Sorensen believes the women will have a better chance to win that argument if the civil suit remained a sexual assault case.
Regardless of what happens in their legal case, the decision by Brooke and the other women to come forward could help change state law for victims who come after them.
Recently, Mr. McKell, the state senator, introduced legislation to clarify that civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault by a health care worker do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act.
“I don’t think it’s a close call. Sexual assault is not medical care,” he said. “I know we’ve got some bizarre rulings that have come down through our courts in Utah.”
Both an association of Utah trial lawyers and the Utah Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s physicians, support this reform.
“We support the fact that sexual assault should not be part of health care medical malpractice,” said Michelle McOmber, the CEO for the Utah Medical Association. “Sexual assault should be sexual assault, regardless of where it happens or who’s doing it. Sexual assault should be in that category, which is separate from actual health care. Because it’s not health care.”
MountainStar doesn’t have a position on the bill, Ms. Glas said. “If the laws were to change via new legislation and/or interpretation by the courts, we would abide by and comply with those new laws.”
But lawmakers are running out of time. With only a short time left in Utah’s legislative session, state senate and house leaders have so far prioritized passing new laws banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and creating a controversial school voucher program that will provide taxpayer funds for students to attend private school.
Utah lawmakers were also expected to consider a dramatic change for other sexual assault victims: a bill that would remove filing deadlines for civil lawsuits brought by people abused as adults. But that bill stalled before it could be debated.
Brooke had been eager to share her story, she said, in hopes it would help the first four women who’d come forward bolster their lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent. She later joined the case as a plaintiff. She read in their lawsuit about one woman who complained about him to the same hospital 7 years before she did, and about another woman who said Dr. Broadbent similarly molested her 2 days after Brooke had expressed her own concern.
“That bothered me so much,” she said. “It didn’t have to happen to all these women.”
Brooke doubts she’ll get vindication in a courtroom. Justice for her, she suspects, won’t come in the form of a legal ruling or a settlement against the doctor she says hurt her years ago.
Instead, she said, “maybe justice looks like changing the laws for future women.”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Treating nail psoriasis: Intralesional injections and biologics
HONOLULU – combined with systemic therapy.
One might think of intralesional injections “as a torture method from the medieval days,” she said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE!, but intramatricial corticosteroid injections have been performed for many years as a treatment for nail psoriasis, typically with triamcinolone acetonide.
According to Dr. Armstrong, professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, nail matrix psoriasis can present as pitting, leukonychia, red macules in the lunula, crumbling, or trachyonychia. Nail bed psoriasis can present as splinter hemorrhages and onycholysis, hyperkeratosis and splinter hemorrhages, salmon patch or oil spot dyschromia, or onycholysis and salmon patch dyschromia.
In a German cross-sectional study of patients with psoriasis, nails were one of the body sites that have the greatest impact on quality of life – especially those in younger age groups.
While topical treatments are generally considered first for limited disease involving special areas such as the nails, systemic therapy is warranted in patients with moderate-to-severe involvement of specific sites or in those refractory to topical therapy, Dr. Armstrong said.
In 2018, Indian researchers published results from an open-label study of 17 patients, with nail psoriasis, comparing three treatments . Patients were assigned to three groups of 30 nails each and treated with intramatricial injections of triamcinolone acetonide (10 mg/mL), methotrexate (25 mg/mL), and cyclosporine (50 mg/mL), respectively. Each nail was treated with two injections at 6-week intervals and graded at 24 weeks using the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI). In the triamcinolone acetonide and methotrexate groups, 50% of treated nails showed a greater than 75% improvement at 24 weeks, compared with 33% of those in the cyclosporine group. The most side effects occurred in the nails treated with cyclosporine.
When Dr. Armstrong performs intramatricial injections, she uses triamcinolone acetonide at 10 mg/mL. However, she said, “my favorite way of treating severe nail psoriasis is with biologics.”
In an early study of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab 80 mg subcutaneously at week 0, followed by 40 mg subcutaneously every other week from weeks 1 to 15, a post hoc analysis on the effects on nail psoriasis showed a 10-point decrease in the median NAPSI score through week 16 – from 21 to 11 .
In VOYAGE 2, which compared the interleukin-23 blocker guselkumab and adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, the mean percent improvement from baseline in the NAPSI score was similar in patients treated with adalimumab or guselkumab at week 16 (39.6% vs. 46.9%, respectively) and at week 24 (55% vs. 53.7%).
In another study of patients with nail psoriasis, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the IL-17A antagonist secukinumab 150 mg, 300 mg, or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter for 2.5 years. At 2.5 years, the mean reduction in NAPSI score was 63.6% in the secukinumab 150 mg group and 73.3% in the secukinumab 300 mg group.
“I do have to tell my patients what to expect, because the nails grow out slowly, but over time we do see this increase in efficacy,” Dr. Armstrong said.
Studies of another IL-17A antagonist, ixekizumab, have yielded positive results as well, she noted. In 2021, Taiwanese researchers published a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis. They drew from 39 studies involving 15,673 patients with nail psoriasis and found that the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib and ixekizumab had the best efficacy for treating nail psoriasis in 10-16 weeks and 24-26 weeks, respectively.
“They found that overall, the biologics have a good effect on nail psoriasis and that the treatment effects are overall quite similar,” Dr. Armstrong said.
Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. She has also received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Leo, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma.
HONOLULU – combined with systemic therapy.
One might think of intralesional injections “as a torture method from the medieval days,” she said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE!, but intramatricial corticosteroid injections have been performed for many years as a treatment for nail psoriasis, typically with triamcinolone acetonide.
According to Dr. Armstrong, professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, nail matrix psoriasis can present as pitting, leukonychia, red macules in the lunula, crumbling, or trachyonychia. Nail bed psoriasis can present as splinter hemorrhages and onycholysis, hyperkeratosis and splinter hemorrhages, salmon patch or oil spot dyschromia, or onycholysis and salmon patch dyschromia.
In a German cross-sectional study of patients with psoriasis, nails were one of the body sites that have the greatest impact on quality of life – especially those in younger age groups.
While topical treatments are generally considered first for limited disease involving special areas such as the nails, systemic therapy is warranted in patients with moderate-to-severe involvement of specific sites or in those refractory to topical therapy, Dr. Armstrong said.
In 2018, Indian researchers published results from an open-label study of 17 patients, with nail psoriasis, comparing three treatments . Patients were assigned to three groups of 30 nails each and treated with intramatricial injections of triamcinolone acetonide (10 mg/mL), methotrexate (25 mg/mL), and cyclosporine (50 mg/mL), respectively. Each nail was treated with two injections at 6-week intervals and graded at 24 weeks using the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI). In the triamcinolone acetonide and methotrexate groups, 50% of treated nails showed a greater than 75% improvement at 24 weeks, compared with 33% of those in the cyclosporine group. The most side effects occurred in the nails treated with cyclosporine.
When Dr. Armstrong performs intramatricial injections, she uses triamcinolone acetonide at 10 mg/mL. However, she said, “my favorite way of treating severe nail psoriasis is with biologics.”
In an early study of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab 80 mg subcutaneously at week 0, followed by 40 mg subcutaneously every other week from weeks 1 to 15, a post hoc analysis on the effects on nail psoriasis showed a 10-point decrease in the median NAPSI score through week 16 – from 21 to 11 .
In VOYAGE 2, which compared the interleukin-23 blocker guselkumab and adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, the mean percent improvement from baseline in the NAPSI score was similar in patients treated with adalimumab or guselkumab at week 16 (39.6% vs. 46.9%, respectively) and at week 24 (55% vs. 53.7%).
In another study of patients with nail psoriasis, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the IL-17A antagonist secukinumab 150 mg, 300 mg, or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter for 2.5 years. At 2.5 years, the mean reduction in NAPSI score was 63.6% in the secukinumab 150 mg group and 73.3% in the secukinumab 300 mg group.
“I do have to tell my patients what to expect, because the nails grow out slowly, but over time we do see this increase in efficacy,” Dr. Armstrong said.
Studies of another IL-17A antagonist, ixekizumab, have yielded positive results as well, she noted. In 2021, Taiwanese researchers published a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis. They drew from 39 studies involving 15,673 patients with nail psoriasis and found that the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib and ixekizumab had the best efficacy for treating nail psoriasis in 10-16 weeks and 24-26 weeks, respectively.
“They found that overall, the biologics have a good effect on nail psoriasis and that the treatment effects are overall quite similar,” Dr. Armstrong said.
Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. She has also received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Leo, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma.
HONOLULU – combined with systemic therapy.
One might think of intralesional injections “as a torture method from the medieval days,” she said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE!, but intramatricial corticosteroid injections have been performed for many years as a treatment for nail psoriasis, typically with triamcinolone acetonide.
According to Dr. Armstrong, professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, nail matrix psoriasis can present as pitting, leukonychia, red macules in the lunula, crumbling, or trachyonychia. Nail bed psoriasis can present as splinter hemorrhages and onycholysis, hyperkeratosis and splinter hemorrhages, salmon patch or oil spot dyschromia, or onycholysis and salmon patch dyschromia.
In a German cross-sectional study of patients with psoriasis, nails were one of the body sites that have the greatest impact on quality of life – especially those in younger age groups.
While topical treatments are generally considered first for limited disease involving special areas such as the nails, systemic therapy is warranted in patients with moderate-to-severe involvement of specific sites or in those refractory to topical therapy, Dr. Armstrong said.
In 2018, Indian researchers published results from an open-label study of 17 patients, with nail psoriasis, comparing three treatments . Patients were assigned to three groups of 30 nails each and treated with intramatricial injections of triamcinolone acetonide (10 mg/mL), methotrexate (25 mg/mL), and cyclosporine (50 mg/mL), respectively. Each nail was treated with two injections at 6-week intervals and graded at 24 weeks using the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI). In the triamcinolone acetonide and methotrexate groups, 50% of treated nails showed a greater than 75% improvement at 24 weeks, compared with 33% of those in the cyclosporine group. The most side effects occurred in the nails treated with cyclosporine.
When Dr. Armstrong performs intramatricial injections, she uses triamcinolone acetonide at 10 mg/mL. However, she said, “my favorite way of treating severe nail psoriasis is with biologics.”
In an early study of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab 80 mg subcutaneously at week 0, followed by 40 mg subcutaneously every other week from weeks 1 to 15, a post hoc analysis on the effects on nail psoriasis showed a 10-point decrease in the median NAPSI score through week 16 – from 21 to 11 .
In VOYAGE 2, which compared the interleukin-23 blocker guselkumab and adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, the mean percent improvement from baseline in the NAPSI score was similar in patients treated with adalimumab or guselkumab at week 16 (39.6% vs. 46.9%, respectively) and at week 24 (55% vs. 53.7%).
In another study of patients with nail psoriasis, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the IL-17A antagonist secukinumab 150 mg, 300 mg, or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter for 2.5 years. At 2.5 years, the mean reduction in NAPSI score was 63.6% in the secukinumab 150 mg group and 73.3% in the secukinumab 300 mg group.
“I do have to tell my patients what to expect, because the nails grow out slowly, but over time we do see this increase in efficacy,” Dr. Armstrong said.
Studies of another IL-17A antagonist, ixekizumab, have yielded positive results as well, she noted. In 2021, Taiwanese researchers published a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis. They drew from 39 studies involving 15,673 patients with nail psoriasis and found that the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib and ixekizumab had the best efficacy for treating nail psoriasis in 10-16 weeks and 24-26 weeks, respectively.
“They found that overall, the biologics have a good effect on nail psoriasis and that the treatment effects are overall quite similar,” Dr. Armstrong said.
Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. She has also received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Leo, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma.
AT THE MEDSCAPELIVE! HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
What’s holding back physicians from prescribing biosimilars? Four specialties weigh in
While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.
In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.
Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients
2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.
There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”
The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education
Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.
Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).
“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”
Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars
Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.
About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.
Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.
Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
Ophthalmologists remain wary
Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.
George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.
When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.
Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.
While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.
In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.
Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients
2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.
There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”
The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education
Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.
Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).
“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”
Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars
Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.
About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.
Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.
Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
Ophthalmologists remain wary
Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.
George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.
When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.
Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.
While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.
In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.
Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients
2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.
There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”
The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education
Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.
Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).
“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”
Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars
Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.
About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.
Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.
Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
Ophthalmologists remain wary
Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.
George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.
When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.
Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.
While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prone positioning curbs need for intubation in nonintubated COVID-19 patients
as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.
The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.
Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.
For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.
The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.
Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).
A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).
However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).
Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.
The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.
“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.
The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.
“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”
Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.
For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.
The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.
Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.
For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.
The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.
Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).
A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).
However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).
Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.
The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.
“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.
The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.
“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”
Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.
For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.
The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.
Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.
For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.
The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.
Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).
A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).
However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).
Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.
The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.
“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.
The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.
“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”
Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.
For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCCM 2023
No advantage for full-term aspirin in preventing preterm preeclampsia
Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.
The findings were published online in JAMA.
Editorialists advise careful consideration
However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.
They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.
In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk
While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.
In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).
Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.
Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.
Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
Differences in U.S. guidelines
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.
They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.
They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”
The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.
The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.
The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.
Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.
They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”
The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.
The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.
Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.
The findings were published online in JAMA.
Editorialists advise careful consideration
However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.
They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.
In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk
While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.
In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).
Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.
Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.
Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
Differences in U.S. guidelines
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.
They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.
They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”
The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.
The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.
The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.
Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.
They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”
The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.
The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.
Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.
The findings were published online in JAMA.
Editorialists advise careful consideration
However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.
They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.
In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk
While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.
In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).
Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.
Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.
Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
Differences in U.S. guidelines
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.
They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.
They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’
Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”
The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.
The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.
The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.
Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.
They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”
The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.
The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA
Real-time CGM plus insulin pump best for type 1 diabetes
Youth with type 1 diabetes who use real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an insulin pump spend more time in target glucose range than do those using intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and/or multiple daily insulin injections, new data show.
In the multinational cohort study of more than 4,500 people younger than age 21 with type 1 diabetes, those using rtCGM and pumps also spent less time above and below glucose targets and had fewer severe adverse events – either severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) – compared with injections and isCGM.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Klemen Dovc, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic diseases, University Children’s Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and colleagues.
“These results underscore the synergistic effect of advanced diabetes technologies that should be more readily available to youths with type 1 diabetes for further improvement of diabetes-related clinical outcomes,” the authors wrote.
Moreover, Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “Clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in effectiveness between different types of devices, and that choosing the right device for each individual may be important for achieving optimal outcomes.”
Real-time CGM + insulin pump = highest time in range
The researchers explained that two modalities of CGM are broadly available: rtCGM, which continuously displays glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (usually at intervals of 1-5 minutes) on a dedicated receiver or other portable device, such as a smartphone, and provides various adjustable alarms, and isCGM, which displays data on demand when the transmitter is scanned using either a dedicated reader or smartphone-based application.
rtCGMs include devices from Dexcom and Medtronic. The isCGM, or “flash,” generally refers to the Abbott FreeStyle Libre.
The study included individuals younger than 21 years from 34 centers in 21 countries in the SWEET registry, a worldwide network of diabetes care centers for youth, between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The researchers didn’t report which particular devices were used in the trial, rather they just divided patients into four groups: 850 used isCGM with a pump, 1,231 used isCGM with multiple daily injections, 2,252 used rtCGM with a pump, and 886 used rtCGM with insulin injections.
After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes duration, and body mass index standard deviation score, rtCGM plus insulin pump was the most likely group to achieve the recommended greater than 70% time in target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL), with 36.2% achieving it, followed by rtCGM plus injections, at 20.9%, and isCGM plus injections, at 12.5%. Those using isCGM with an insulin pump were the least likely to achieve time in range, at just 11.3%.
Similar trends were seen for the recommended goal of less than 4% of time spent below range (< 70 mg/dL) and less than 25% of time spent above range (> 180 mg/dL). Those using rtCGM with a pump had the highest proportions achieving both of those goals, 73.1% and 32.5%, respectively.
The use of rtCGM, with or without a pump, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively) than isCGM with or without a pump (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively).
Similarly, the proportion experiencing at least one DKA episode varied from 1.4% for rtCGM plus insulin pump and 0.7% for rtCGM plus injections to 3.0% for isCGM plus pump and 1.5% isCGM plus injections.
Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit
Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.
Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).
Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.
But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”
Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”
Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”
He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.
“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”
This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Youth with type 1 diabetes who use real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an insulin pump spend more time in target glucose range than do those using intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and/or multiple daily insulin injections, new data show.
In the multinational cohort study of more than 4,500 people younger than age 21 with type 1 diabetes, those using rtCGM and pumps also spent less time above and below glucose targets and had fewer severe adverse events – either severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) – compared with injections and isCGM.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Klemen Dovc, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic diseases, University Children’s Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and colleagues.
“These results underscore the synergistic effect of advanced diabetes technologies that should be more readily available to youths with type 1 diabetes for further improvement of diabetes-related clinical outcomes,” the authors wrote.
Moreover, Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “Clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in effectiveness between different types of devices, and that choosing the right device for each individual may be important for achieving optimal outcomes.”
Real-time CGM + insulin pump = highest time in range
The researchers explained that two modalities of CGM are broadly available: rtCGM, which continuously displays glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (usually at intervals of 1-5 minutes) on a dedicated receiver or other portable device, such as a smartphone, and provides various adjustable alarms, and isCGM, which displays data on demand when the transmitter is scanned using either a dedicated reader or smartphone-based application.
rtCGMs include devices from Dexcom and Medtronic. The isCGM, or “flash,” generally refers to the Abbott FreeStyle Libre.
The study included individuals younger than 21 years from 34 centers in 21 countries in the SWEET registry, a worldwide network of diabetes care centers for youth, between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The researchers didn’t report which particular devices were used in the trial, rather they just divided patients into four groups: 850 used isCGM with a pump, 1,231 used isCGM with multiple daily injections, 2,252 used rtCGM with a pump, and 886 used rtCGM with insulin injections.
After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes duration, and body mass index standard deviation score, rtCGM plus insulin pump was the most likely group to achieve the recommended greater than 70% time in target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL), with 36.2% achieving it, followed by rtCGM plus injections, at 20.9%, and isCGM plus injections, at 12.5%. Those using isCGM with an insulin pump were the least likely to achieve time in range, at just 11.3%.
Similar trends were seen for the recommended goal of less than 4% of time spent below range (< 70 mg/dL) and less than 25% of time spent above range (> 180 mg/dL). Those using rtCGM with a pump had the highest proportions achieving both of those goals, 73.1% and 32.5%, respectively.
The use of rtCGM, with or without a pump, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively) than isCGM with or without a pump (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively).
Similarly, the proportion experiencing at least one DKA episode varied from 1.4% for rtCGM plus insulin pump and 0.7% for rtCGM plus injections to 3.0% for isCGM plus pump and 1.5% isCGM plus injections.
Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit
Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.
Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).
Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.
But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”
Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”
Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”
He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.
“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”
This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Youth with type 1 diabetes who use real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an insulin pump spend more time in target glucose range than do those using intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and/or multiple daily insulin injections, new data show.
In the multinational cohort study of more than 4,500 people younger than age 21 with type 1 diabetes, those using rtCGM and pumps also spent less time above and below glucose targets and had fewer severe adverse events – either severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) – compared with injections and isCGM.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Klemen Dovc, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic diseases, University Children’s Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and colleagues.
“These results underscore the synergistic effect of advanced diabetes technologies that should be more readily available to youths with type 1 diabetes for further improvement of diabetes-related clinical outcomes,” the authors wrote.
Moreover, Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “Clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in effectiveness between different types of devices, and that choosing the right device for each individual may be important for achieving optimal outcomes.”
Real-time CGM + insulin pump = highest time in range
The researchers explained that two modalities of CGM are broadly available: rtCGM, which continuously displays glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (usually at intervals of 1-5 minutes) on a dedicated receiver or other portable device, such as a smartphone, and provides various adjustable alarms, and isCGM, which displays data on demand when the transmitter is scanned using either a dedicated reader or smartphone-based application.
rtCGMs include devices from Dexcom and Medtronic. The isCGM, or “flash,” generally refers to the Abbott FreeStyle Libre.
The study included individuals younger than 21 years from 34 centers in 21 countries in the SWEET registry, a worldwide network of diabetes care centers for youth, between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The researchers didn’t report which particular devices were used in the trial, rather they just divided patients into four groups: 850 used isCGM with a pump, 1,231 used isCGM with multiple daily injections, 2,252 used rtCGM with a pump, and 886 used rtCGM with insulin injections.
After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes duration, and body mass index standard deviation score, rtCGM plus insulin pump was the most likely group to achieve the recommended greater than 70% time in target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL), with 36.2% achieving it, followed by rtCGM plus injections, at 20.9%, and isCGM plus injections, at 12.5%. Those using isCGM with an insulin pump were the least likely to achieve time in range, at just 11.3%.
Similar trends were seen for the recommended goal of less than 4% of time spent below range (< 70 mg/dL) and less than 25% of time spent above range (> 180 mg/dL). Those using rtCGM with a pump had the highest proportions achieving both of those goals, 73.1% and 32.5%, respectively.
The use of rtCGM, with or without a pump, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively) than isCGM with or without a pump (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively).
Similarly, the proportion experiencing at least one DKA episode varied from 1.4% for rtCGM plus insulin pump and 0.7% for rtCGM plus injections to 3.0% for isCGM plus pump and 1.5% isCGM plus injections.
Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit
Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.
Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).
Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.
But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”
Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”
Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”
He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.
“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”
This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA broadens warning on potentially contaminated eye products
The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.
The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.
The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination.
On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.
The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.
The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination.
On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.
The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.
The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination.
On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.