MDedge ObGyn

BY DEEPA VARMA

TOPLINE:

In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), laser and light therapies, alone or in combination with pharmacological agents, improve hirsutism and psychological well-being in women, according to the results of a systematic review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hirsutism, which affects 70%-80% of women with PCOS, is frequently marginalized as a cosmetic issue by healthcare providers, despite its significant psychological repercussions, including diminished self-esteem, reduced quality of life, and heightened depression.
• The 2023 international evidence-based PCOS guideline considers managing hirsutism a priority in women with PCOS.
• Researchers reviewed six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies), which included 423 patients with PCOS who underwent laser or light-based hair reduction therapies, published through 2022.
• The studies evaluated the alexandrite laser, diode laser, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, with and without pharmacological treatments. The main outcomes were hirsutism severity, psychological outcome, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alexandrite laser (wavelength, 755 nm) showed effective hair reduction and improved patient satisfaction (one study); high-fluence treatment yielded better outcomes than low-fluence treatment (one study). Alexandrite laser 755 nm also showed longer hair-free intervals and greater hair reduction than IPL therapy at 650-1000 nm (one study).
• Combined IPL (600 nm) and metformin therapy improved hirsutism and hair count reduction compared with IPL alone, but with more side effects (one study).
• Diode laser treatments (810 nm) with combined oral contraceptives improved hirsutism and related quality of life measures compared with diode laser alone or with metformin (one study).
• Comparing two diode lasers (wavelengths, 810 nm), low-fluence, high repetition laser showed superior hair width reduction and lower pain scores than high fluence, low-repetition laser (one study).

IN PRACTICE:

Laser and light treatments alone or combined with other treatments have demonstrated “encouraging results in reducing hirsutism severity, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving overall quality of life for affected individuals,” the authors wrote, noting that additional high-quality trials evaluating these treatments, which include more patients with different skin tones, are needed.

SOURCE:

The first author of the review is Katrina Tan, MD, Monash Health, Department of Dermatology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and it was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include low certainty of evidence because of the observational nature of some of the studies, the small number of studies, and underrepresentation of darker skin types, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The review is part of an update to the PCOS guideline, which was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through various organizations. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees outside this work. Dr. Tan was a member of the 2023 PCOS guideline evidence team. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BY DEEPA VARMA

TOPLINE:

In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), laser and light therapies, alone or in combination with pharmacological agents, improve hirsutism and psychological well-being in women, according to the results of a systematic review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hirsutism, which affects 70%-80% of women with PCOS, is frequently marginalized as a cosmetic issue by healthcare providers, despite its significant psychological repercussions, including diminished self-esteem, reduced quality of life, and heightened depression.
• The 2023 international evidence-based PCOS guideline considers managing hirsutism a priority in women with PCOS.
• Researchers reviewed six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies), which included 423 patients with PCOS who underwent laser or light-based hair reduction therapies, published through 2022.
• The studies evaluated the alexandrite laser, diode laser, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, with and without pharmacological treatments. The main outcomes were hirsutism severity, psychological outcome, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alexandrite laser (wavelength, 755 nm) showed effective hair reduction and improved patient satisfaction (one study); high-fluence treatment yielded better outcomes than low-fluence treatment (one study). Alexandrite laser 755 nm also showed longer hair-free intervals and greater hair reduction than IPL therapy at 650-1000 nm (one study).
• Combined IPL (600 nm) and metformin therapy improved hirsutism and hair count reduction compared with IPL alone, but with more side effects (one study).
• Diode laser treatments (810 nm) with combined oral contraceptives improved hirsutism and related quality of life measures compared with diode laser alone or with metformin (one study).
• Comparing two diode lasers (wavelengths, 810 nm), low-fluence, high repetition laser showed superior hair width reduction and lower pain scores than high fluence, low-repetition laser (one study).

IN PRACTICE:

Laser and light treatments alone or combined with other treatments have demonstrated “encouraging results in reducing hirsutism severity, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving overall quality of life for affected individuals,” the authors wrote, noting that additional high-quality trials evaluating these treatments, which include more patients with different skin tones, are needed.

SOURCE:

The first author of the review is Katrina Tan, MD, Monash Health, Department of Dermatology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and it was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include low certainty of evidence because of the observational nature of some of the studies, the small number of studies, and underrepresentation of darker skin types, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The review is part of an update to the PCOS guideline, which was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through various organizations. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees outside this work. Dr. Tan was a member of the 2023 PCOS guideline evidence team. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BY DEEPA VARMA

TOPLINE:

In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), laser and light therapies, alone or in combination with pharmacological agents, improve hirsutism and psychological well-being in women, according to the results of a systematic review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hirsutism, which affects 70%-80% of women with PCOS, is frequently marginalized as a cosmetic issue by healthcare providers, despite its significant psychological repercussions, including diminished self-esteem, reduced quality of life, and heightened depression.
• The 2023 international evidence-based PCOS guideline considers managing hirsutism a priority in women with PCOS.
• Researchers reviewed six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies), which included 423 patients with PCOS who underwent laser or light-based hair reduction therapies, published through 2022.
• The studies evaluated the alexandrite laser, diode laser, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, with and without pharmacological treatments. The main outcomes were hirsutism severity, psychological outcome, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alexandrite laser (wavelength, 755 nm) showed effective hair reduction and improved patient satisfaction (one study); high-fluence treatment yielded better outcomes than low-fluence treatment (one study). Alexandrite laser 755 nm also showed longer hair-free intervals and greater hair reduction than IPL therapy at 650-1000 nm (one study).
• Combined IPL (600 nm) and metformin therapy improved hirsutism and hair count reduction compared with IPL alone, but with more side effects (one study).
• Diode laser treatments (810 nm) with combined oral contraceptives improved hirsutism and related quality of life measures compared with diode laser alone or with metformin (one study).
• Comparing two diode lasers (wavelengths, 810 nm), low-fluence, high repetition laser showed superior hair width reduction and lower pain scores than high fluence, low-repetition laser (one study).

IN PRACTICE:

Laser and light treatments alone or combined with other treatments have demonstrated “encouraging results in reducing hirsutism severity, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving overall quality of life for affected individuals,” the authors wrote, noting that additional high-quality trials evaluating these treatments, which include more patients with different skin tones, are needed.

SOURCE:

The first author of the review is Katrina Tan, MD, Monash Health, Department of Dermatology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and it was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include low certainty of evidence because of the observational nature of some of the studies, the small number of studies, and underrepresentation of darker skin types, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The review is part of an update to the PCOS guideline, which was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through various organizations. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees outside this work. Dr. Tan was a member of the 2023 PCOS guideline evidence team. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor did not decrease risk for chemotherapy-related cardiac damage in patients being treated for breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a new randomized trial showed.

The results suggested adding an ACE inhibitor doesn’t affect cardiac injury or cardiac function outcomes “and should not be used as a preventative strategy” in these patients, David Austin, MD, consultant cardiologist, Academic Cardiovascular Unit, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, England, and chief investigator for the PROACT study, told this news organization.

But while these negative results are disappointing, he said, “we now have a definitive result in a robustly conducted trial that will take the field forward.”

The findings were presented on April 8, 2024, at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.

Anthracyclines, which are extracted from Streptomyces bacterium, are chemotherapy drugs widely used to treat several types of cancer. Doxorubicin is among the most clinically important anthracyclines.

While extremely effective, anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impair cardiac function and even cause heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. “Cardiac injury is very common in patients treated with high dose anthracyclines,” noted Dr. Austin.

The open-label PROACT study included 111 adult patients, mean age 58 years and predominantly White and women, being treated for breast cancer (62%) or NHL (38%) at National Health Service hospitals in England with high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Patients were randomized to standard care (six cycles of high-dose doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate or standard care alone. The mean chemotherapy dose was 328 mg/m2; any dose greater than 300 is considered high.

The starting dose of enalapril was 2.5 mg twice a day, which was titrated up to a maximum of 10 mg twice a day. The ACE inhibitor was started at least 2 days before chemotherapy began and finished 3 weeks after the last anthracycline dose.

During the study, enalapril was titrated to 20 mg in more than 75% of patients, with the mean dose being 17.7 mg.
 

Myocardial Injury Outcome

The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by the presence (≥ 14 ng/L) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT) during anthracycline treatment and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline.

cTnT is highly expressed in cardiomyocytes and has become a preferred biomarker for detecting acute myocardial infarction and other causes of myocardial injury.

Blood sampling for cTnT and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was performed at baseline, within 72 hours prior to chemotherapy and at trial completion. All patients had negative troponin results at baseline, indicating no heart damage.

A majority of patients experienced elevations in troponin (78% in the enalapril group and 83% in the standard of care group), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.23-1.78; P = .405).

There was also no significant difference between groups in terms of cTnI, a secondary endpoint. However, the proportion of patients testing positive for cTnI (47% in the enalapril group and 45% in controls) was substantially lower than that for cTnT.
 

Large Discrepancy

The “large discrepancy in the rate of injury” with cTnT “has implications for the clinical interpretation of cardiac biomarkers in routine practice, and we should proceed with caution,” Dr. Austin told this news organization.

The finding has implications because guidelines don’t currently differentiate based on the type of troponin, Dr. Austin said in a press release. “I was surprised by the difference, and I think this raises the question of what troponin we should be using.”

Secondary outcomes focused on cardiac function, measured using echocardiography and included left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). These were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after the last anthracycline dose and 1 year after the final chemotherapy.

There was no between-group difference in LVGLS cardiac function (21% for enalapril vs 22% for standard of care; adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.33-2.74; P = .921). This was also true for LVEF (4% for enalapril vs 0% for standard of care group; adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 0.40-674.62; P = .236).

Asked what the research team plans to do next, Dr. Austin said “the immediate first step” is to continue following PROACT patients. “We know heart failure events and cardiac dysfunction can occur later down the line.”

Due to the challenge of enrolling patients into trials like PROACT, “we should come together as a sort of a broader cardiovascular/oncology academic community to try to understand how we can better recruit patients into these studies,” said Dr. Austin.

“We need to solve that problem before we then go on to maybe examine other potential preventative therapies.”

He doesn’t think an alternative ACE inhibitor would prove beneficial. “We need to look elsewhere for effective therapies in this area.”

He noted these new findings are “broadly consistent” with other trials that investigated angiotensin receptor blockers.
 

Tough Population

Commenting on the study during a media briefing, Anita Deswal, chair, medicine, Department of Cardiology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, commended the researchers for managing to enroll patients with cancer as this is “a tough” population to get to agree to being in a clinical trial.

“These patients are often overwhelmed financially, physically, and emotionally with the cancer diagnosis, as well as the cancer therapy and, therefore, to enroll them in something to prevent, maybe, some potential cardiac toxicity down the line, is really hard.”

Past trials investigating neuro-hormonal blockers to prevent cardiotoxicity have been criticized for enrolling patients at “too low risk,” said Dr. Deswal. “But investigators here went that step beyond and enrolled patients who were going to receive higher doses of anthracyclines, so kudos to that.”

And she noted investigators managed to get patients on almost the maximum dose of enalapril. “So, the drug was poised to have an effect — if it was there.”

The negative results may have something to do with endpoints. “Maybe we haven’t quite figured out what are the cutoffs for high sensitivity troponin I that identify patients truly at risk” of developing heart failure in the future.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Anu Lala, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the results may come as a surprise to some.

“ACE inhibitors are considered cardioprotective and for this reason are often used prophylactically in patients receiving chemotherapy.”

Dr. Lala agrees troponin may not be the right endpoint. “Another question is whether clinical outcomes should be followed in addition to symptoms or onset of any heart failure symptoms, which may hold greater prognostic significance.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor did not decrease risk for chemotherapy-related cardiac damage in patients being treated for breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a new randomized trial showed.

The results suggested adding an ACE inhibitor doesn’t affect cardiac injury or cardiac function outcomes “and should not be used as a preventative strategy” in these patients, David Austin, MD, consultant cardiologist, Academic Cardiovascular Unit, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, England, and chief investigator for the PROACT study, told this news organization.

But while these negative results are disappointing, he said, “we now have a definitive result in a robustly conducted trial that will take the field forward.”

The findings were presented on April 8, 2024, at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.

Anthracyclines, which are extracted from Streptomyces bacterium, are chemotherapy drugs widely used to treat several types of cancer. Doxorubicin is among the most clinically important anthracyclines.

While extremely effective, anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impair cardiac function and even cause heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. “Cardiac injury is very common in patients treated with high dose anthracyclines,” noted Dr. Austin.

The open-label PROACT study included 111 adult patients, mean age 58 years and predominantly White and women, being treated for breast cancer (62%) or NHL (38%) at National Health Service hospitals in England with high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Patients were randomized to standard care (six cycles of high-dose doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate or standard care alone. The mean chemotherapy dose was 328 mg/m2; any dose greater than 300 is considered high.

The starting dose of enalapril was 2.5 mg twice a day, which was titrated up to a maximum of 10 mg twice a day. The ACE inhibitor was started at least 2 days before chemotherapy began and finished 3 weeks after the last anthracycline dose.

During the study, enalapril was titrated to 20 mg in more than 75% of patients, with the mean dose being 17.7 mg.
 

Myocardial Injury Outcome

The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by the presence (≥ 14 ng/L) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT) during anthracycline treatment and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline.

cTnT is highly expressed in cardiomyocytes and has become a preferred biomarker for detecting acute myocardial infarction and other causes of myocardial injury.

Blood sampling for cTnT and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was performed at baseline, within 72 hours prior to chemotherapy and at trial completion. All patients had negative troponin results at baseline, indicating no heart damage.

A majority of patients experienced elevations in troponin (78% in the enalapril group and 83% in the standard of care group), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.23-1.78; P = .405).

There was also no significant difference between groups in terms of cTnI, a secondary endpoint. However, the proportion of patients testing positive for cTnI (47% in the enalapril group and 45% in controls) was substantially lower than that for cTnT.
 

Large Discrepancy

The “large discrepancy in the rate of injury” with cTnT “has implications for the clinical interpretation of cardiac biomarkers in routine practice, and we should proceed with caution,” Dr. Austin told this news organization.

The finding has implications because guidelines don’t currently differentiate based on the type of troponin, Dr. Austin said in a press release. “I was surprised by the difference, and I think this raises the question of what troponin we should be using.”

Secondary outcomes focused on cardiac function, measured using echocardiography and included left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). These were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after the last anthracycline dose and 1 year after the final chemotherapy.

There was no between-group difference in LVGLS cardiac function (21% for enalapril vs 22% for standard of care; adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.33-2.74; P = .921). This was also true for LVEF (4% for enalapril vs 0% for standard of care group; adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 0.40-674.62; P = .236).

Asked what the research team plans to do next, Dr. Austin said “the immediate first step” is to continue following PROACT patients. “We know heart failure events and cardiac dysfunction can occur later down the line.”

Due to the challenge of enrolling patients into trials like PROACT, “we should come together as a sort of a broader cardiovascular/oncology academic community to try to understand how we can better recruit patients into these studies,” said Dr. Austin.

“We need to solve that problem before we then go on to maybe examine other potential preventative therapies.”

He doesn’t think an alternative ACE inhibitor would prove beneficial. “We need to look elsewhere for effective therapies in this area.”

He noted these new findings are “broadly consistent” with other trials that investigated angiotensin receptor blockers.
 

Tough Population

Commenting on the study during a media briefing, Anita Deswal, chair, medicine, Department of Cardiology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, commended the researchers for managing to enroll patients with cancer as this is “a tough” population to get to agree to being in a clinical trial.

“These patients are often overwhelmed financially, physically, and emotionally with the cancer diagnosis, as well as the cancer therapy and, therefore, to enroll them in something to prevent, maybe, some potential cardiac toxicity down the line, is really hard.”

Past trials investigating neuro-hormonal blockers to prevent cardiotoxicity have been criticized for enrolling patients at “too low risk,” said Dr. Deswal. “But investigators here went that step beyond and enrolled patients who were going to receive higher doses of anthracyclines, so kudos to that.”

And she noted investigators managed to get patients on almost the maximum dose of enalapril. “So, the drug was poised to have an effect — if it was there.”

The negative results may have something to do with endpoints. “Maybe we haven’t quite figured out what are the cutoffs for high sensitivity troponin I that identify patients truly at risk” of developing heart failure in the future.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Anu Lala, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the results may come as a surprise to some.

“ACE inhibitors are considered cardioprotective and for this reason are often used prophylactically in patients receiving chemotherapy.”

Dr. Lala agrees troponin may not be the right endpoint. “Another question is whether clinical outcomes should be followed in addition to symptoms or onset of any heart failure symptoms, which may hold greater prognostic significance.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor did not decrease risk for chemotherapy-related cardiac damage in patients being treated for breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a new randomized trial showed.

The results suggested adding an ACE inhibitor doesn’t affect cardiac injury or cardiac function outcomes “and should not be used as a preventative strategy” in these patients, David Austin, MD, consultant cardiologist, Academic Cardiovascular Unit, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, England, and chief investigator for the PROACT study, told this news organization.

But while these negative results are disappointing, he said, “we now have a definitive result in a robustly conducted trial that will take the field forward.”

The findings were presented on April 8, 2024, at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.

Anthracyclines, which are extracted from Streptomyces bacterium, are chemotherapy drugs widely used to treat several types of cancer. Doxorubicin is among the most clinically important anthracyclines.

While extremely effective, anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impair cardiac function and even cause heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. “Cardiac injury is very common in patients treated with high dose anthracyclines,” noted Dr. Austin.

The open-label PROACT study included 111 adult patients, mean age 58 years and predominantly White and women, being treated for breast cancer (62%) or NHL (38%) at National Health Service hospitals in England with high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Patients were randomized to standard care (six cycles of high-dose doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate or standard care alone. The mean chemotherapy dose was 328 mg/m2; any dose greater than 300 is considered high.

The starting dose of enalapril was 2.5 mg twice a day, which was titrated up to a maximum of 10 mg twice a day. The ACE inhibitor was started at least 2 days before chemotherapy began and finished 3 weeks after the last anthracycline dose.

During the study, enalapril was titrated to 20 mg in more than 75% of patients, with the mean dose being 17.7 mg.
 

Myocardial Injury Outcome

The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by the presence (≥ 14 ng/L) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT) during anthracycline treatment and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline.

cTnT is highly expressed in cardiomyocytes and has become a preferred biomarker for detecting acute myocardial infarction and other causes of myocardial injury.

Blood sampling for cTnT and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was performed at baseline, within 72 hours prior to chemotherapy and at trial completion. All patients had negative troponin results at baseline, indicating no heart damage.

A majority of patients experienced elevations in troponin (78% in the enalapril group and 83% in the standard of care group), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.23-1.78; P = .405).

There was also no significant difference between groups in terms of cTnI, a secondary endpoint. However, the proportion of patients testing positive for cTnI (47% in the enalapril group and 45% in controls) was substantially lower than that for cTnT.
 

Large Discrepancy

The “large discrepancy in the rate of injury” with cTnT “has implications for the clinical interpretation of cardiac biomarkers in routine practice, and we should proceed with caution,” Dr. Austin told this news organization.

The finding has implications because guidelines don’t currently differentiate based on the type of troponin, Dr. Austin said in a press release. “I was surprised by the difference, and I think this raises the question of what troponin we should be using.”

Secondary outcomes focused on cardiac function, measured using echocardiography and included left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). These were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after the last anthracycline dose and 1 year after the final chemotherapy.

There was no between-group difference in LVGLS cardiac function (21% for enalapril vs 22% for standard of care; adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.33-2.74; P = .921). This was also true for LVEF (4% for enalapril vs 0% for standard of care group; adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 0.40-674.62; P = .236).

Asked what the research team plans to do next, Dr. Austin said “the immediate first step” is to continue following PROACT patients. “We know heart failure events and cardiac dysfunction can occur later down the line.”

Due to the challenge of enrolling patients into trials like PROACT, “we should come together as a sort of a broader cardiovascular/oncology academic community to try to understand how we can better recruit patients into these studies,” said Dr. Austin.

“We need to solve that problem before we then go on to maybe examine other potential preventative therapies.”

He doesn’t think an alternative ACE inhibitor would prove beneficial. “We need to look elsewhere for effective therapies in this area.”

He noted these new findings are “broadly consistent” with other trials that investigated angiotensin receptor blockers.
 

Tough Population

Commenting on the study during a media briefing, Anita Deswal, chair, medicine, Department of Cardiology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, commended the researchers for managing to enroll patients with cancer as this is “a tough” population to get to agree to being in a clinical trial.

“These patients are often overwhelmed financially, physically, and emotionally with the cancer diagnosis, as well as the cancer therapy and, therefore, to enroll them in something to prevent, maybe, some potential cardiac toxicity down the line, is really hard.”

Past trials investigating neuro-hormonal blockers to prevent cardiotoxicity have been criticized for enrolling patients at “too low risk,” said Dr. Deswal. “But investigators here went that step beyond and enrolled patients who were going to receive higher doses of anthracyclines, so kudos to that.”

And she noted investigators managed to get patients on almost the maximum dose of enalapril. “So, the drug was poised to have an effect — if it was there.”

The negative results may have something to do with endpoints. “Maybe we haven’t quite figured out what are the cutoffs for high sensitivity troponin I that identify patients truly at risk” of developing heart failure in the future.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Anu Lala, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the results may come as a surprise to some.

“ACE inhibitors are considered cardioprotective and for this reason are often used prophylactically in patients receiving chemotherapy.”

Dr. Lala agrees troponin may not be the right endpoint. “Another question is whether clinical outcomes should be followed in addition to symptoms or onset of any heart failure symptoms, which may hold greater prognostic significance.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Taryn Murray, MD

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Taryn Murray, MD

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Taryn Murray, MD

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Dr. Green

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Dr. Green

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Dr. Green

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.