MDedge ObGyn

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.

In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).

“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.

“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”

These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:

• Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
• Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
• Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
• The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.

Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career

According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.

In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.

Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).

“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.

In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).

“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.

“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”

These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:

• Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
• Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
• Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
• The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.

Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career

According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.

In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.

Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).

“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.

In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).

“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.

“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”

These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:

• Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
• Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
• Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
• The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.

Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career

According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.

In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.

Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).

“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.