Ob.Gyn. News

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the United States, nearly 4 million women a year prepare to give birth, looking forward to the joy to come. But for some, the dream turns tragic. About 700 women die each year either during their pregnancy or in the weeks after the birth. And another 60,000 have pregnancy-related or childbirth-related health issues.

Causes of death vary greatly, including hemorrhage during pregnancy or during delivery, heart conditions, and mental health issues such as substance abuse and suicide after the birth.

In 2019, the U.S. maternal death rate was 20.1 per 100,000 women, according to the CDC, significantly higher than the 17.4 per 100,000 recorded in 2018. For Black women, the maternal death rate was more than double the overall – 44 per 100,000 in 2019.

“We have to address our horrendous maternal health care system and also need to address the inequities,” says Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation supporting independent research on health care issues. “This is an issue that has needed national attention for a long time.”

“If we look overall, our maternal death rate is more than twice that of more than 10 other high-income countries,” she said.

As sobering as the problem is, recent developments have sparked hope that reversing the course is possible. Among them:

U.S. News & World Report, long known for its rankings of hospitals, issued its first ever “Best Hospitals for Maternity” rankings Dec. 7, highlighting facilities that perform well on key quality indicators. It plans to update the report annually.

At the first-ever White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Dec. 7, Vice President Kamala Harris urged a call to action to reduce maternal deaths and pregnancy-related health problems, with extension of postpartum coverage through Medicaid programs, among other actions.

A new hospital designation called ‘’Birthing Friendly” will be established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The label will be given to facilities that take part in a program aimed at improving maternal outcomes and that use patient safety practices.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better plan includes maternal health provisions, including $3 billion in new maternal health funding. The money will aim to grow and diversify the workforce caring for pregnant women, coordinate care better, and step up research on maternal health, among other projects.

Ongoing efforts in Congress are aimed at fixing the wide disparities in maternal health affecting Black women. Regardless of income level or education, Black women are at a higher risk of maternal death and other health issues than are White women. A Black woman with a college education is at 60% higher risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman who didn’t graduate high school, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
 

Best hospitals for maternity

For its rankings, U.S. News and World Report reached out to the 2,700 U.S. hospitals that offer maternity services, said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report.

To be recognized, a hospital had to submit data from 2019 and meet the publication’s maternity care standards. The publication received responses from just 571 hospitals, representing about two of every five births in the country.

Of those, 237 were identified as best for maternity.

As to why the response rate was not higher, Mr. Harder cited the reporting burden and says it is understandable. Some hospitals likely did not have the staff available, especially during the pandemic, to gather the data needed to be evaluated by U.S. News & World Report.

On their other evaluations, the rankings are based on Medicare data, “so hospitals don’t have to lift a finger.” He expects more hospitals will respond for their future evaluations of maternity care.

The evaluators focused on five quality measures, making a score based on the cesarean section delivery rate among first-time mothers, early elective delivery rates, unexpected newborn complication rates, breastfeeding rates, and option for vaginal birth after C-section.
 

A call to action: Expand coverage

Speaking at the White House Maternal Health Day of Action, Mrs. Harris told participants: “The challenge is urgent, and it is important, and it will take all of us.”

Being pregnant and giving birth, she said, should not carry such great risks. She zeroed in on systemic inequities in the way women are treated and the dramatic impact maternal death and health issues have on the economy.

“A healthy economy requires healthy mothers and healthy babies,” Mrs. Harris said.

“Before, during, and after childbirth, women in our nation are dying at a higher rate than any other developed nation in our world,” she said, noting that research shows that Black women, Native Americans, and women in rural America more likely to suffer.

A major strategy in the call to action, according to Mrs. Harris, is encouraging states to expand postpartum coverage to pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from the existing 60 days to a full year. Together, these two programs cover over 42% of births in the country, so expanding the coverage is expected to have a great impact.

The 60 days of coverage is not enough, as many deaths and complications happen more than 60 days after childbirth, Mrs. Harris said. The logistics for states to extend coverage were established by the American Rescue Plan and will become available by April 2022. Some states have already extended the postpartum coverage.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, if every state did adopt an extension, as the Build Back Better Act proposes, the number of Americans getting coverage for a full year after childbirth would about double, extending the coverage for about 720,000 each year.
 

Congressional actions

Congress is working on the issue as well. The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, for instance, proposes several measures, including improving maternal nutrition, expanding affordable housing, and extending the maternal workforce to include more doulas and midwives.

“And for so many women, let’s note doulas are literally a lifeline,” Mrs. Harris said at the White House event.

Doulas are trained to offer women physical, emotional, and informational support before, during, and after childbirth. No reliable statistics are available on their numbers in the United States, but a March of Dimes report estimates that about 9,000 were included in a registration database in 2018.
 

Explaining and fixing the disparities

No one can explain for sure why Black women, in particular, are at higher risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications. Systemic inequity is one likely reason, Mrs. Harris said, noting there are differences in how people are treated based on who they are.

Inherent and unconscious bias in offering women treatment plays a role, experts say. Training could reverse or reduce that bias. Some women of color also may have less access to care, as do women in some rural areas.

According to Mrs. Harris, more than 20 companies and nonprofits have pledged to invest more than $20 million in maternal health efforts in the United States and more than $150 million globally. Among the proposed programs: remote-care monitors in rural areas, better care models for the postpartum period, and improved education programs for maternal health providers.
 

When statistics hit home

Many who work to improve maternal health have gone through issues themselves or had loved ones who did.

Jill Arnold, founder of the Maternal Safety Foundation in Bentonville, Ark., became a consumer advocate after giving birth to her two daughters, now teenagers. With the first birth, Ms. Arnold said she was intensely pressured at the last minute to have a C-section. She held out, resisted, and delivered a healthy baby vaginally.

For her second childbirth, she chose an accredited birth center that allowed her to have a doula and a midwife.

“The care I received was night and day,” she said. “The overwhelming pressure to consent to a C-section wasn’t there.”

She welcomes the information provided by the new U.S. News & World Report rankings as well as the upcoming “Birthing Friendly” designations.

“The onus shouldn’t be on patients, on individuals, on pregnant people to do the research,” Ms. Arnold said.

Rather, women and their partners need information at their fingertips so they can make an informed decision about how to give birth and where.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who cofounded the Black Maternal Health Caucus in April 2019, with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), wrote a touching blog in the journal Health Affairs to explain her passion in improving maternal health.

Her former classmate, Shalon Irving, who went on to become a CDC epidemiologist, died in February 2017 at age 36, just 3 weeks after giving birth, when she developed complications from high blood pressure.

In the blog, Ms. Underwood cited statistics and provides details of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, then ends the blog, published in 2020, with an update on how Ms. Irving’s then 3-year-old daughter, raised by her grandmother, is doing. While Soleil is “curious, joyful, and brilliant,” the grandmother told Ms. Underwood that she has also walked into a room and found the little girl clutching a framed photograph of her mother.

The child’s question is understandable and heartbreaking: She wants to know where her mommy is.

“Soleil’s question is my motivation,” Ms. Underwood wrote. “To honor Shalon, and all the women like her who we have lost, let us take the serious and urgent action that is required to save our moms.”

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

In the United States, nearly 4 million women a year prepare to give birth, looking forward to the joy to come. But for some, the dream turns tragic. About 700 women die each year either during their pregnancy or in the weeks after the birth. And another 60,000 have pregnancy-related or childbirth-related health issues.

Causes of death vary greatly, including hemorrhage during pregnancy or during delivery, heart conditions, and mental health issues such as substance abuse and suicide after the birth.

In 2019, the U.S. maternal death rate was 20.1 per 100,000 women, according to the CDC, significantly higher than the 17.4 per 100,000 recorded in 2018. For Black women, the maternal death rate was more than double the overall – 44 per 100,000 in 2019.

“We have to address our horrendous maternal health care system and also need to address the inequities,” says Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation supporting independent research on health care issues. “This is an issue that has needed national attention for a long time.”

“If we look overall, our maternal death rate is more than twice that of more than 10 other high-income countries,” she said.

As sobering as the problem is, recent developments have sparked hope that reversing the course is possible. Among them:

U.S. News & World Report, long known for its rankings of hospitals, issued its first ever “Best Hospitals for Maternity” rankings Dec. 7, highlighting facilities that perform well on key quality indicators. It plans to update the report annually.

At the first-ever White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Dec. 7, Vice President Kamala Harris urged a call to action to reduce maternal deaths and pregnancy-related health problems, with extension of postpartum coverage through Medicaid programs, among other actions.

A new hospital designation called ‘’Birthing Friendly” will be established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The label will be given to facilities that take part in a program aimed at improving maternal outcomes and that use patient safety practices.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better plan includes maternal health provisions, including $3 billion in new maternal health funding. The money will aim to grow and diversify the workforce caring for pregnant women, coordinate care better, and step up research on maternal health, among other projects.

Ongoing efforts in Congress are aimed at fixing the wide disparities in maternal health affecting Black women. Regardless of income level or education, Black women are at a higher risk of maternal death and other health issues than are White women. A Black woman with a college education is at 60% higher risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman who didn’t graduate high school, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
 

Best hospitals for maternity

For its rankings, U.S. News and World Report reached out to the 2,700 U.S. hospitals that offer maternity services, said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report.

To be recognized, a hospital had to submit data from 2019 and meet the publication’s maternity care standards. The publication received responses from just 571 hospitals, representing about two of every five births in the country.

Of those, 237 were identified as best for maternity.

As to why the response rate was not higher, Mr. Harder cited the reporting burden and says it is understandable. Some hospitals likely did not have the staff available, especially during the pandemic, to gather the data needed to be evaluated by U.S. News & World Report.

On their other evaluations, the rankings are based on Medicare data, “so hospitals don’t have to lift a finger.” He expects more hospitals will respond for their future evaluations of maternity care.

The evaluators focused on five quality measures, making a score based on the cesarean section delivery rate among first-time mothers, early elective delivery rates, unexpected newborn complication rates, breastfeeding rates, and option for vaginal birth after C-section.
 

A call to action: Expand coverage

Speaking at the White House Maternal Health Day of Action, Mrs. Harris told participants: “The challenge is urgent, and it is important, and it will take all of us.”

Being pregnant and giving birth, she said, should not carry such great risks. She zeroed in on systemic inequities in the way women are treated and the dramatic impact maternal death and health issues have on the economy.

“A healthy economy requires healthy mothers and healthy babies,” Mrs. Harris said.

“Before, during, and after childbirth, women in our nation are dying at a higher rate than any other developed nation in our world,” she said, noting that research shows that Black women, Native Americans, and women in rural America more likely to suffer.

A major strategy in the call to action, according to Mrs. Harris, is encouraging states to expand postpartum coverage to pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from the existing 60 days to a full year. Together, these two programs cover over 42% of births in the country, so expanding the coverage is expected to have a great impact.

The 60 days of coverage is not enough, as many deaths and complications happen more than 60 days after childbirth, Mrs. Harris said. The logistics for states to extend coverage were established by the American Rescue Plan and will become available by April 2022. Some states have already extended the postpartum coverage.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, if every state did adopt an extension, as the Build Back Better Act proposes, the number of Americans getting coverage for a full year after childbirth would about double, extending the coverage for about 720,000 each year.
 

Congressional actions

Congress is working on the issue as well. The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, for instance, proposes several measures, including improving maternal nutrition, expanding affordable housing, and extending the maternal workforce to include more doulas and midwives.

“And for so many women, let’s note doulas are literally a lifeline,” Mrs. Harris said at the White House event.

Doulas are trained to offer women physical, emotional, and informational support before, during, and after childbirth. No reliable statistics are available on their numbers in the United States, but a March of Dimes report estimates that about 9,000 were included in a registration database in 2018.
 

Explaining and fixing the disparities

No one can explain for sure why Black women, in particular, are at higher risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications. Systemic inequity is one likely reason, Mrs. Harris said, noting there are differences in how people are treated based on who they are.

Inherent and unconscious bias in offering women treatment plays a role, experts say. Training could reverse or reduce that bias. Some women of color also may have less access to care, as do women in some rural areas.

According to Mrs. Harris, more than 20 companies and nonprofits have pledged to invest more than $20 million in maternal health efforts in the United States and more than $150 million globally. Among the proposed programs: remote-care monitors in rural areas, better care models for the postpartum period, and improved education programs for maternal health providers.
 

When statistics hit home

Many who work to improve maternal health have gone through issues themselves or had loved ones who did.

Jill Arnold, founder of the Maternal Safety Foundation in Bentonville, Ark., became a consumer advocate after giving birth to her two daughters, now teenagers. With the first birth, Ms. Arnold said she was intensely pressured at the last minute to have a C-section. She held out, resisted, and delivered a healthy baby vaginally.

For her second childbirth, she chose an accredited birth center that allowed her to have a doula and a midwife.

“The care I received was night and day,” she said. “The overwhelming pressure to consent to a C-section wasn’t there.”

She welcomes the information provided by the new U.S. News & World Report rankings as well as the upcoming “Birthing Friendly” designations.

“The onus shouldn’t be on patients, on individuals, on pregnant people to do the research,” Ms. Arnold said.

Rather, women and their partners need information at their fingertips so they can make an informed decision about how to give birth and where.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who cofounded the Black Maternal Health Caucus in April 2019, with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), wrote a touching blog in the journal Health Affairs to explain her passion in improving maternal health.

Her former classmate, Shalon Irving, who went on to become a CDC epidemiologist, died in February 2017 at age 36, just 3 weeks after giving birth, when she developed complications from high blood pressure.

In the blog, Ms. Underwood cited statistics and provides details of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, then ends the blog, published in 2020, with an update on how Ms. Irving’s then 3-year-old daughter, raised by her grandmother, is doing. While Soleil is “curious, joyful, and brilliant,” the grandmother told Ms. Underwood that she has also walked into a room and found the little girl clutching a framed photograph of her mother.

The child’s question is understandable and heartbreaking: She wants to know where her mommy is.

“Soleil’s question is my motivation,” Ms. Underwood wrote. “To honor Shalon, and all the women like her who we have lost, let us take the serious and urgent action that is required to save our moms.”

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

In the United States, nearly 4 million women a year prepare to give birth, looking forward to the joy to come. But for some, the dream turns tragic. About 700 women die each year either during their pregnancy or in the weeks after the birth. And another 60,000 have pregnancy-related or childbirth-related health issues.

Causes of death vary greatly, including hemorrhage during pregnancy or during delivery, heart conditions, and mental health issues such as substance abuse and suicide after the birth.

In 2019, the U.S. maternal death rate was 20.1 per 100,000 women, according to the CDC, significantly higher than the 17.4 per 100,000 recorded in 2018. For Black women, the maternal death rate was more than double the overall – 44 per 100,000 in 2019.

“We have to address our horrendous maternal health care system and also need to address the inequities,” says Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation supporting independent research on health care issues. “This is an issue that has needed national attention for a long time.”

“If we look overall, our maternal death rate is more than twice that of more than 10 other high-income countries,” she said.

As sobering as the problem is, recent developments have sparked hope that reversing the course is possible. Among them:

U.S. News & World Report, long known for its rankings of hospitals, issued its first ever “Best Hospitals for Maternity” rankings Dec. 7, highlighting facilities that perform well on key quality indicators. It plans to update the report annually.

At the first-ever White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Dec. 7, Vice President Kamala Harris urged a call to action to reduce maternal deaths and pregnancy-related health problems, with extension of postpartum coverage through Medicaid programs, among other actions.

A new hospital designation called ‘’Birthing Friendly” will be established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The label will be given to facilities that take part in a program aimed at improving maternal outcomes and that use patient safety practices.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better plan includes maternal health provisions, including $3 billion in new maternal health funding. The money will aim to grow and diversify the workforce caring for pregnant women, coordinate care better, and step up research on maternal health, among other projects.

Ongoing efforts in Congress are aimed at fixing the wide disparities in maternal health affecting Black women. Regardless of income level or education, Black women are at a higher risk of maternal death and other health issues than are White women. A Black woman with a college education is at 60% higher risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman who didn’t graduate high school, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
 

Best hospitals for maternity

For its rankings, U.S. News and World Report reached out to the 2,700 U.S. hospitals that offer maternity services, said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report.

To be recognized, a hospital had to submit data from 2019 and meet the publication’s maternity care standards. The publication received responses from just 571 hospitals, representing about two of every five births in the country.

Of those, 237 were identified as best for maternity.

As to why the response rate was not higher, Mr. Harder cited the reporting burden and says it is understandable. Some hospitals likely did not have the staff available, especially during the pandemic, to gather the data needed to be evaluated by U.S. News & World Report.

On their other evaluations, the rankings are based on Medicare data, “so hospitals don’t have to lift a finger.” He expects more hospitals will respond for their future evaluations of maternity care.

The evaluators focused on five quality measures, making a score based on the cesarean section delivery rate among first-time mothers, early elective delivery rates, unexpected newborn complication rates, breastfeeding rates, and option for vaginal birth after C-section.
 

A call to action: Expand coverage

Speaking at the White House Maternal Health Day of Action, Mrs. Harris told participants: “The challenge is urgent, and it is important, and it will take all of us.”

Being pregnant and giving birth, she said, should not carry such great risks. She zeroed in on systemic inequities in the way women are treated and the dramatic impact maternal death and health issues have on the economy.

“A healthy economy requires healthy mothers and healthy babies,” Mrs. Harris said.

“Before, during, and after childbirth, women in our nation are dying at a higher rate than any other developed nation in our world,” she said, noting that research shows that Black women, Native Americans, and women in rural America more likely to suffer.

A major strategy in the call to action, according to Mrs. Harris, is encouraging states to expand postpartum coverage to pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from the existing 60 days to a full year. Together, these two programs cover over 42% of births in the country, so expanding the coverage is expected to have a great impact.

The 60 days of coverage is not enough, as many deaths and complications happen more than 60 days after childbirth, Mrs. Harris said. The logistics for states to extend coverage were established by the American Rescue Plan and will become available by April 2022. Some states have already extended the postpartum coverage.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, if every state did adopt an extension, as the Build Back Better Act proposes, the number of Americans getting coverage for a full year after childbirth would about double, extending the coverage for about 720,000 each year.
 

Congressional actions

Congress is working on the issue as well. The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, for instance, proposes several measures, including improving maternal nutrition, expanding affordable housing, and extending the maternal workforce to include more doulas and midwives.

“And for so many women, let’s note doulas are literally a lifeline,” Mrs. Harris said at the White House event.

Doulas are trained to offer women physical, emotional, and informational support before, during, and after childbirth. No reliable statistics are available on their numbers in the United States, but a March of Dimes report estimates that about 9,000 were included in a registration database in 2018.
 

Explaining and fixing the disparities

No one can explain for sure why Black women, in particular, are at higher risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications. Systemic inequity is one likely reason, Mrs. Harris said, noting there are differences in how people are treated based on who they are.

Inherent and unconscious bias in offering women treatment plays a role, experts say. Training could reverse or reduce that bias. Some women of color also may have less access to care, as do women in some rural areas.

According to Mrs. Harris, more than 20 companies and nonprofits have pledged to invest more than $20 million in maternal health efforts in the United States and more than $150 million globally. Among the proposed programs: remote-care monitors in rural areas, better care models for the postpartum period, and improved education programs for maternal health providers.
 

When statistics hit home

Many who work to improve maternal health have gone through issues themselves or had loved ones who did.

Jill Arnold, founder of the Maternal Safety Foundation in Bentonville, Ark., became a consumer advocate after giving birth to her two daughters, now teenagers. With the first birth, Ms. Arnold said she was intensely pressured at the last minute to have a C-section. She held out, resisted, and delivered a healthy baby vaginally.

For her second childbirth, she chose an accredited birth center that allowed her to have a doula and a midwife.

“The care I received was night and day,” she said. “The overwhelming pressure to consent to a C-section wasn’t there.”

She welcomes the information provided by the new U.S. News & World Report rankings as well as the upcoming “Birthing Friendly” designations.

“The onus shouldn’t be on patients, on individuals, on pregnant people to do the research,” Ms. Arnold said.

Rather, women and their partners need information at their fingertips so they can make an informed decision about how to give birth and where.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who cofounded the Black Maternal Health Caucus in April 2019, with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), wrote a touching blog in the journal Health Affairs to explain her passion in improving maternal health.

Her former classmate, Shalon Irving, who went on to become a CDC epidemiologist, died in February 2017 at age 36, just 3 weeks after giving birth, when she developed complications from high blood pressure.

In the blog, Ms. Underwood cited statistics and provides details of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, then ends the blog, published in 2020, with an update on how Ms. Irving’s then 3-year-old daughter, raised by her grandmother, is doing. While Soleil is “curious, joyful, and brilliant,” the grandmother told Ms. Underwood that she has also walked into a room and found the little girl clutching a framed photograph of her mother.

The child’s question is understandable and heartbreaking: She wants to know where her mommy is.

“Soleil’s question is my motivation,” Ms. Underwood wrote. “To honor Shalon, and all the women like her who we have lost, let us take the serious and urgent action that is required to save our moms.”

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

The cutoff for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for using pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is able to identify patients who are expected to derive most benefit, shows an analysis of KEYNOTE-355 recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-355 – which is a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of 847 patients – were stratified by CPS scores of at least 1 and at least 10, with the latter group in which adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was shown to significantly improve both overall survival and progression-free survival.

As it was unclear whether taking a more fine-grained approach would reveal specific CPS scores at which pembrolizumab would be beneficial, Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Barcelona, and colleagues divided the patients into four CPS levels: less than 1, 1-9, 10-19, and at least 20.

Patients with a CPS 10-19 and at least 20 given pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy had an overall survival benefit of 29% and 28%, respectively, while the PFS improvement was 30% and 38%. In the CPS of less than 1 and 1-9 groups, there were no discernible benefits from adding the checkpoint inhibitor.

“Given the similar outcomes in the CPS 10-19 and the CPS ≥20 subgroups, a CPS of 10 or more is a reasonable cutoff to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC that might have benefit from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy,” Dr. Cortes said. “In my opinion, these results provide further support for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a good option, maybe a standard of care for some patients ... with local recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-1 CPS ≥10.”

Invited discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, said the study demonstrates that PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 is “clearly the optimal cutoff for differentiating benefit from pembrolizumab” and confirms the combination with chemotherapy as a “standard of care in this population”.

However, there are a number of outstanding questions in the metastatic setting, she said, including the test used to determine PD-L1 expression.

“Clearly the test that you order should be matched to the planned checkpoint inhibitor, and we look forward to additional data” on the relative overlap of the assays used in both the current study and in KEYNOTE-522.

However, IMpassion130 showed there is “incomplete overlap in terms of the two antibodies and tests that have been used to define PD-L1 positivity in breast cancer,” said Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“For excellent responders, can chemotherapy and eventually immunotherapy be discontinued, and when is it optimal? How long should we be continuing the combination and how long should we continue the checkpoint inhibitor alone?” she asked.

“Certainly in my own clinical practice,” Dr. Rugo explained, “in those excellent responders, it’s difficult to know when to stop the checkpoint inhibitor, but sometimes toxicity tells us the answer to that question. At some point, we need to stop therapy and understand what happens to those patients.”

She said that only 38% of patients in the current study benefited from pembrolizumab. “How can we amplify the immune response in those patients who do not have PD-L1–positive disease to further extend this benefit, and can we extend the efficacy to other subtypes? There are ongoing studies evaluating this question,” Dr. Rugo said.

Dr. Cortes said that KEYNOTE-355 showed the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mTNBC.

However, that benefit was seen only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while there was no statistically significant improvement in either PFS or overall survival in those with a CPS of at least 1.

He explained that 847 patients with previously untreated locally recurrent or metastatic TNBC, or those who had been treated at least 6 months prior to disease recurrence, were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy.

For the current analysis, they substratified patients by PD-L1 CPS into less than 1, which accounted for 24.9% of patients; 1-9, seen in 36.2%-38.4%; 10-19, accounting for 13.9%-14.1%; and at least 20, seen in 22.8%-24.7% of patients.

Dr. Cortes said the overall survival rate among patients with CPS of at least 10 was 70.5% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 81.6% for those assigned to placebo, at a significant hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = .0093).

Among patients with CPS of at least 1, the overall survival rate was 79.1% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 83.9% in those given placebo, at a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.86. This translated into an HR of 0.89 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Turning to the novel subgroups, Dr. Cortes showed that the HR for overall survival for pembrolizumab versus placebo was nonsignificant in patients with CPS of at least 1, at 0.97, and in those with CPS 1-9, at 1.09.

However, the HRs were markedly improved in patients with CPD 10-19, at 0.71, and in those with CPS of at least 20, at 0.72, showing that the “relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was pretty much the same ... suggesting that CPS ≥10 could be a reasonable cutoff.”

In both of these groups, there was a sustained separation in the overall survival curves starting at around 10 months.

Turning to the PFS results, Dr Cortes said the event-free rate was 65.5% with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while those given placebo had a rate of 78.6%, at an HR of 0.66.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1, the HR was 0.75, or 0.82 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

“As with overall survival,” he said, there was a “trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, although the PFS benefit in the pembro arm was slightly greater in the CPS ≥20 subgroup, compared to the CPS 10-19 subgroup.”

However, they highlighted that the difference was “small and the confidence intervals clearly overlapped.”

Why does PD-L1 expression play a role in response to pembrolizumab in mTNBC, but not in the early disease setting as seen in KEYNOTE-522?

“This is a question we have raised many, many times and have had many debates on,” Dr. Cortes said. “They are two completely different populations with the early breast cancer setting completely different to that in metastatic disease. Maybe the microenvironment plays a different role there, maybe we have to explore more in detail other biomarkers. I also think that different drugs were used in the neoadjuvant setting. We still have many unanswered questions.”

Dr. Rugo suggested that previous studies have given some clues to these questions with reductions in PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes observed between primary and metastatic disease.

The immune differences between primary and metastatic disease lead to immune escape, she said, adding: “This is clearly complicated by mutational complexity under the pressure of treatment.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Cortes and Dr. Rugo reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The cutoff for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for using pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is able to identify patients who are expected to derive most benefit, shows an analysis of KEYNOTE-355 recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-355 – which is a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of 847 patients – were stratified by CPS scores of at least 1 and at least 10, with the latter group in which adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was shown to significantly improve both overall survival and progression-free survival.

As it was unclear whether taking a more fine-grained approach would reveal specific CPS scores at which pembrolizumab would be beneficial, Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Barcelona, and colleagues divided the patients into four CPS levels: less than 1, 1-9, 10-19, and at least 20.

Patients with a CPS 10-19 and at least 20 given pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy had an overall survival benefit of 29% and 28%, respectively, while the PFS improvement was 30% and 38%. In the CPS of less than 1 and 1-9 groups, there were no discernible benefits from adding the checkpoint inhibitor.

“Given the similar outcomes in the CPS 10-19 and the CPS ≥20 subgroups, a CPS of 10 or more is a reasonable cutoff to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC that might have benefit from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy,” Dr. Cortes said. “In my opinion, these results provide further support for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a good option, maybe a standard of care for some patients ... with local recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-1 CPS ≥10.”

Invited discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, said the study demonstrates that PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 is “clearly the optimal cutoff for differentiating benefit from pembrolizumab” and confirms the combination with chemotherapy as a “standard of care in this population”.

However, there are a number of outstanding questions in the metastatic setting, she said, including the test used to determine PD-L1 expression.

“Clearly the test that you order should be matched to the planned checkpoint inhibitor, and we look forward to additional data” on the relative overlap of the assays used in both the current study and in KEYNOTE-522.

However, IMpassion130 showed there is “incomplete overlap in terms of the two antibodies and tests that have been used to define PD-L1 positivity in breast cancer,” said Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“For excellent responders, can chemotherapy and eventually immunotherapy be discontinued, and when is it optimal? How long should we be continuing the combination and how long should we continue the checkpoint inhibitor alone?” she asked.

“Certainly in my own clinical practice,” Dr. Rugo explained, “in those excellent responders, it’s difficult to know when to stop the checkpoint inhibitor, but sometimes toxicity tells us the answer to that question. At some point, we need to stop therapy and understand what happens to those patients.”

She said that only 38% of patients in the current study benefited from pembrolizumab. “How can we amplify the immune response in those patients who do not have PD-L1–positive disease to further extend this benefit, and can we extend the efficacy to other subtypes? There are ongoing studies evaluating this question,” Dr. Rugo said.

Dr. Cortes said that KEYNOTE-355 showed the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mTNBC.

However, that benefit was seen only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while there was no statistically significant improvement in either PFS or overall survival in those with a CPS of at least 1.

He explained that 847 patients with previously untreated locally recurrent or metastatic TNBC, or those who had been treated at least 6 months prior to disease recurrence, were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy.

For the current analysis, they substratified patients by PD-L1 CPS into less than 1, which accounted for 24.9% of patients; 1-9, seen in 36.2%-38.4%; 10-19, accounting for 13.9%-14.1%; and at least 20, seen in 22.8%-24.7% of patients.

Dr. Cortes said the overall survival rate among patients with CPS of at least 10 was 70.5% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 81.6% for those assigned to placebo, at a significant hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = .0093).

Among patients with CPS of at least 1, the overall survival rate was 79.1% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 83.9% in those given placebo, at a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.86. This translated into an HR of 0.89 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Turning to the novel subgroups, Dr. Cortes showed that the HR for overall survival for pembrolizumab versus placebo was nonsignificant in patients with CPS of at least 1, at 0.97, and in those with CPS 1-9, at 1.09.

However, the HRs were markedly improved in patients with CPD 10-19, at 0.71, and in those with CPS of at least 20, at 0.72, showing that the “relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was pretty much the same ... suggesting that CPS ≥10 could be a reasonable cutoff.”

In both of these groups, there was a sustained separation in the overall survival curves starting at around 10 months.

Turning to the PFS results, Dr Cortes said the event-free rate was 65.5% with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while those given placebo had a rate of 78.6%, at an HR of 0.66.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1, the HR was 0.75, or 0.82 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

“As with overall survival,” he said, there was a “trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, although the PFS benefit in the pembro arm was slightly greater in the CPS ≥20 subgroup, compared to the CPS 10-19 subgroup.”

However, they highlighted that the difference was “small and the confidence intervals clearly overlapped.”

Why does PD-L1 expression play a role in response to pembrolizumab in mTNBC, but not in the early disease setting as seen in KEYNOTE-522?

“This is a question we have raised many, many times and have had many debates on,” Dr. Cortes said. “They are two completely different populations with the early breast cancer setting completely different to that in metastatic disease. Maybe the microenvironment plays a different role there, maybe we have to explore more in detail other biomarkers. I also think that different drugs were used in the neoadjuvant setting. We still have many unanswered questions.”

Dr. Rugo suggested that previous studies have given some clues to these questions with reductions in PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes observed between primary and metastatic disease.

The immune differences between primary and metastatic disease lead to immune escape, she said, adding: “This is clearly complicated by mutational complexity under the pressure of treatment.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Cortes and Dr. Rugo reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The cutoff for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for using pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is able to identify patients who are expected to derive most benefit, shows an analysis of KEYNOTE-355 recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-355 – which is a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of 847 patients – were stratified by CPS scores of at least 1 and at least 10, with the latter group in which adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was shown to significantly improve both overall survival and progression-free survival.

As it was unclear whether taking a more fine-grained approach would reveal specific CPS scores at which pembrolizumab would be beneficial, Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Barcelona, and colleagues divided the patients into four CPS levels: less than 1, 1-9, 10-19, and at least 20.

Patients with a CPS 10-19 and at least 20 given pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy had an overall survival benefit of 29% and 28%, respectively, while the PFS improvement was 30% and 38%. In the CPS of less than 1 and 1-9 groups, there were no discernible benefits from adding the checkpoint inhibitor.

“Given the similar outcomes in the CPS 10-19 and the CPS ≥20 subgroups, a CPS of 10 or more is a reasonable cutoff to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC that might have benefit from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy,” Dr. Cortes said. “In my opinion, these results provide further support for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a good option, maybe a standard of care for some patients ... with local recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-1 CPS ≥10.”

Invited discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, said the study demonstrates that PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 is “clearly the optimal cutoff for differentiating benefit from pembrolizumab” and confirms the combination with chemotherapy as a “standard of care in this population”.

However, there are a number of outstanding questions in the metastatic setting, she said, including the test used to determine PD-L1 expression.

“Clearly the test that you order should be matched to the planned checkpoint inhibitor, and we look forward to additional data” on the relative overlap of the assays used in both the current study and in KEYNOTE-522.

However, IMpassion130 showed there is “incomplete overlap in terms of the two antibodies and tests that have been used to define PD-L1 positivity in breast cancer,” said Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“For excellent responders, can chemotherapy and eventually immunotherapy be discontinued, and when is it optimal? How long should we be continuing the combination and how long should we continue the checkpoint inhibitor alone?” she asked.

“Certainly in my own clinical practice,” Dr. Rugo explained, “in those excellent responders, it’s difficult to know when to stop the checkpoint inhibitor, but sometimes toxicity tells us the answer to that question. At some point, we need to stop therapy and understand what happens to those patients.”

She said that only 38% of patients in the current study benefited from pembrolizumab. “How can we amplify the immune response in those patients who do not have PD-L1–positive disease to further extend this benefit, and can we extend the efficacy to other subtypes? There are ongoing studies evaluating this question,” Dr. Rugo said.

Dr. Cortes said that KEYNOTE-355 showed the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mTNBC.

However, that benefit was seen only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while there was no statistically significant improvement in either PFS or overall survival in those with a CPS of at least 1.

He explained that 847 patients with previously untreated locally recurrent or metastatic TNBC, or those who had been treated at least 6 months prior to disease recurrence, were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy.

For the current analysis, they substratified patients by PD-L1 CPS into less than 1, which accounted for 24.9% of patients; 1-9, seen in 36.2%-38.4%; 10-19, accounting for 13.9%-14.1%; and at least 20, seen in 22.8%-24.7% of patients.

Dr. Cortes said the overall survival rate among patients with CPS of at least 10 was 70.5% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 81.6% for those assigned to placebo, at a significant hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = .0093).

Among patients with CPS of at least 1, the overall survival rate was 79.1% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 83.9% in those given placebo, at a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.86. This translated into an HR of 0.89 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Turning to the novel subgroups, Dr. Cortes showed that the HR for overall survival for pembrolizumab versus placebo was nonsignificant in patients with CPS of at least 1, at 0.97, and in those with CPS 1-9, at 1.09.

However, the HRs were markedly improved in patients with CPD 10-19, at 0.71, and in those with CPS of at least 20, at 0.72, showing that the “relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was pretty much the same ... suggesting that CPS ≥10 could be a reasonable cutoff.”

In both of these groups, there was a sustained separation in the overall survival curves starting at around 10 months.

Turning to the PFS results, Dr Cortes said the event-free rate was 65.5% with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while those given placebo had a rate of 78.6%, at an HR of 0.66.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1, the HR was 0.75, or 0.82 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

“As with overall survival,” he said, there was a “trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, although the PFS benefit in the pembro arm was slightly greater in the CPS ≥20 subgroup, compared to the CPS 10-19 subgroup.”

However, they highlighted that the difference was “small and the confidence intervals clearly overlapped.”

Why does PD-L1 expression play a role in response to pembrolizumab in mTNBC, but not in the early disease setting as seen in KEYNOTE-522?

“This is a question we have raised many, many times and have had many debates on,” Dr. Cortes said. “They are two completely different populations with the early breast cancer setting completely different to that in metastatic disease. Maybe the microenvironment plays a different role there, maybe we have to explore more in detail other biomarkers. I also think that different drugs were used in the neoadjuvant setting. We still have many unanswered questions.”

Dr. Rugo suggested that previous studies have given some clues to these questions with reductions in PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes observed between primary and metastatic disease.

The immune differences between primary and metastatic disease lead to immune escape, she said, adding: “This is clearly complicated by mutational complexity under the pressure of treatment.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Cortes and Dr. Rugo reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The benefit of giving pembolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting to patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) extends across subgroups and clinical situations, suggests the latest analysis from KEYNOTE-522.

The original trial data in more than 1,100 patients with early-stage TNBC indicated that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy prior to surgery and giving the drug for a year afterward improves event-free survival (EFS) over placebo by 37%.

Now, the researchers conducted a series of prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses, finding remarkably consistent EFS outcomes whether considering the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy, positive surgical margins, or disease characteristics such as nodal status and disease stage.

The analyses showed that the benefit with pembrolizumab over placebo was “robust,” said study presenter Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London.

“These results further support pembrolizumab plus platinum-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab after surgery as a new standard of care treatment regimen for patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC,” he said.

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 7.

Hope S. Rugo, MD, who was invited to comment on the findings, noted that, while the sensitivity analyses showed the benefit with pembrolizumab was seen across the board, the numbers in each group of interest were “very small, making any impact unlikely.”

She continued that there also remain a number of unanswered questions, chief among them being: “Does everybody need a checkpoint inhibitor? Perhaps studies ... could help us understand which patients might do well with chemotherapy alone.”

Dr. Rugo, who is professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, , added that “we need to understand the balance of risk and toxicity” asking whether there are patients whose risk of an immunotoxicity is “so high that we should not give them a checkpoint inhibitor.”

It is not clear what constitutes the optimal chemotherapy backbone. “Does everybody need carboplatin? Does everyone need a year of pembrolizumab, even with a pathologic complete response given the intriguing data from GeparNUEVO and previously the I-SPY trial?” she asked.

“Of course, we don’t know the answers to those questions,” she said, but it is nevertheless possible to draw a roadmap for the treatment of early TNBC, although the choice of adjuvant therapy following surgery is less clear.

Dr. Rugo conducted a Twitter poll to canvas opinion on what to give to patients following surgery, depending on whether or not they have a pathological complete response.

At 73%, most of almost 200 respondents said patients with a pathological complete response should continue pembrolizumab for 1 year, while 72% said that patients without a pathological complete response should receive combination therapy of pembrolizumab and either capecitabine or olaparib, depending on mutational status.

Dr. Schmid began his presentation by noting that KEYNOTE-522 was the first prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab in early TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

Previously presented results showed that adding neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful increase in pathological complete response, while continuing with adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery led to a clinically meaningful improvement in EFS.

Consequently, the Food and Drug Administration approved pembrolizumab in this setting for patients with high-risk early-stage TNBC.

He reminded the audience that the trial included 1,174 patients randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks alongside eight cycles of chemotherapy, followed by pembrolizumab over placebo alone for up to nine cycles after undergoing definitive surgery.

After a median follow-up of 39.1 months, 15.7% of patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced an event versus 23.9% of those in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio of 0.63 (P = .00031). At 36 months, the EFS rate was 84.5% with pembrolizumab and 76.8% in patients treated with placebo.

Dr. Schmid said that they then performed five prespecified sensitivity analyses, which revealed that the results were “consistent with the primary EFS in all five sensitivity analyses, showing the robustnesses of the event-free survival benefit in the pembrolizumab arm.”

The first analysis, he continued, is of “particular interest as it considered the impact of postsurgery new anticancer therapy. For example, the use of adjuvant capecitabine.”

Censoring 31 patients from the pembrolizumab arm who received the drug and 13 of those given placebo, the team found that the hazard ratio for EFS for pembrolizumab versus placebo was 0.64.

Removing “positive margin at last surgery” as part of the definition of EFS also did not change the results substantially, with the HR for EFS for pembrolizumab versus placebo at 0.65.

Subgroup analysis revealed “consistent EFS results,” Dr. Schmid said, irrespective of whether stratifying the patients by nodal status, overall disease stage, menopausal status, HER2 status, or lactate dehydrogenase levels.

While patients in both treatment arms who had nodal involvement had worse outcomes than those without, those in the pembrolizumab arm “still had improved outcomes, compared with placebo, suggesting that it provides benefit regardless of nodal status.”

“Similarly, the EFS benefit with pembrolizumab was irrespective of disease stage,” Dr. Schmid said. Although the EFS improvement was greater in patients with stage II rather than III disease, at a HR of 0.60 versus 0.68, it highlights “the importance of early intervention.”

He said that the “rate of adverse events with pembrolizumab was low, especially in the adjuvant setting.”

Following his presentation, Dr. Schmid was asked whether he would consider retrying immunotherapy in patients after progression on pembrolizumab.

He replied that this is currently a “data-free zone.”

However, he said: “If a patient responded immunotherapy initially, had a disease-free interval and then has recurrence, then I would consider, if the patient is PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] positive, at that time to add immunotherapy. We can’t say whether those patients will derive the same benefit” as that seen in randomized controlled trials in later stage TNBC, he added, “but there is, in my opinion, little to lose, especially if we have already established the patient tolerates immunotherapy well in that setting.”

Dr. Schmid continued that he “personally found it reassuring” that, in the current study, even patients without a complete pathological response “still showed a substantially better event-free survival compared to patients without immunotherapy, so I personally would consider immunotherapy for those patients when they relapse but we can discuss what the optimal disease-free interval is.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Both Dr. Rugo and Dr. Schmid reported relationships numerous pharmaceutical companies.

.

The benefit of giving pembolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting to patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) extends across subgroups and clinical situations, suggests the latest analysis from KEYNOTE-522.

The original trial data in more than 1,100 patients with early-stage TNBC indicated that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy prior to surgery and giving the drug for a year afterward improves event-free survival (EFS) over placebo by 37%.

Now, the researchers conducted a series of prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses, finding remarkably consistent EFS outcomes whether considering the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy, positive surgical margins, or disease characteristics such as nodal status and disease stage.

The analyses showed that the benefit with pembrolizumab over placebo was “robust,” said study presenter Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London.

“These results further support pembrolizumab plus platinum-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab after surgery as a new standard of care treatment regimen for patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC,” he said.

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 7.

Hope S. Rugo, MD, who was invited to comment on the findings, noted that, while the sensitivity analyses showed the benefit with pembrolizumab was seen across the board, the numbers in each group of interest were “very small, making any impact unlikely.”

She continued that there also remain a number of unanswered questions, chief among them being: “Does everybody need a checkpoint inhibitor? Perhaps studies ... could help us understand which patients might do well with chemotherapy alone.”

Dr. Rugo, who is professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, , added that “we need to understand the balance of risk and toxicity” asking whether there are patients whose risk of an immunotoxicity is “so high that we should not give them a checkpoint inhibitor.”

It is not clear what constitutes the optimal chemotherapy backbone. “Does everybody need carboplatin? Does everyone need a year of pembrolizumab, even with a pathologic complete response given the intriguing data from GeparNUEVO and previously the I-SPY trial?” she asked.

“Of course, we don’t know the answers to those questions,” she said, but it is nevertheless possible to draw a roadmap for the treatment of early TNBC, although the choice of adjuvant therapy following surgery is less clear.

Dr. Rugo conducted a Twitter poll to canvas opinion on what to give to patients following surgery, depending on whether or not they have a pathological complete response.

At 73%, most of almost 200 respondents said patients with a pathological complete response should continue pembrolizumab for 1 year, while 72% said that patients without a pathological complete response should receive combination therapy of pembrolizumab and either capecitabine or olaparib, depending on mutational status.

Dr. Schmid began his presentation by noting that KEYNOTE-522 was the first prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab in early TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

Previously presented results showed that adding neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful increase in pathological complete response, while continuing with adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery led to a clinically meaningful improvement in EFS.

Consequently, the Food and Drug Administration approved pembrolizumab in this setting for patients with high-risk early-stage TNBC.

He reminded the audience that the trial included 1,174 patients randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks alongside eight cycles of chemotherapy, followed by pembrolizumab over placebo alone for up to nine cycles after undergoing definitive surgery.

After a median follow-up of 39.1 months, 15.7% of patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced an event versus 23.9% of those in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio of 0.63 (P = .00031). At 36 months, the EFS rate was 84.5% with pembrolizumab and 76.8% in patients treated with placebo.

Dr. Schmid said that they then performed five prespecified sensitivity analyses, which revealed that the results were “consistent with the primary EFS in all five sensitivity analyses, showing the robustnesses of the event-free survival benefit in the pembrolizumab arm.”

The first analysis, he continued, is of “particular interest as it considered the impact of postsurgery new anticancer therapy. For example, the use of adjuvant capecitabine.”

Censoring 31 patients from the pembrolizumab arm who received the drug and 13 of those given placebo, the team found that the hazard ratio for EFS for pembrolizumab versus placebo was 0.64.

Removing “positive margin at last surgery” as part of the definition of EFS also did not change the results substantially, with the HR for EFS for pembrolizumab versus placebo at 0.65.

Subgroup analysis revealed “consistent EFS results,” Dr. Schmid said, irrespective of whether stratifying the patients by nodal status, overall disease stage, menopausal status, HER2 status, or lactate dehydrogenase levels.

While patients in both treatment arms who had nodal involvement had worse outcomes than those without, those in the pembrolizumab arm “still had improved outcomes, compared with placebo, suggesting that it provides benefit regardless of nodal status.”

“Similarly, the EFS benefit with pembrolizumab was irrespective of disease stage,” Dr. Schmid said. Although the EFS improvement was greater in patients with stage II rather than III disease, at a HR of 0.60 versus 0.68, it highlights “the importance of early intervention.”

He said that the “rate of adverse events with pembrolizumab was low, especially in the adjuvant setting.”

Following his presentation, Dr. Schmid was asked whether he would consider retrying immunotherapy in patients after progression on pembrolizumab.

He replied that this is currently a “data-free zone.”

However, he said: “If a patient responded immunotherapy initially, had a disease-free interval and then has recurrence, then I would consider, if the patient is PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] positive, at that time to add immunotherapy. We can’t say whether those patients will derive the same benefit” as that seen in randomized controlled trials in later stage TNBC, he added, “but there is, in my opinion, little to lose, especially if we have already established the patient tolerates immunotherapy well in that setting.”

Dr. Schmid continued that he “personally found it reassuring” that, in the current study, even patients without a complete pathological response “still showed a substantially better event-free survival compared to patients without immunotherapy, so I personally would consider immunotherapy for those patients when they relapse but we can discuss what the optimal disease-free interval is.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Both Dr. Rugo and Dr. Schmid reported relationships numerous pharmaceutical companies.

.

The benefit of giving pembolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting to patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) extends across subgroups and clinical situations, suggests the latest analysis from KEYNOTE-522.

The original trial data in more than 1,100 patients with early-stage TNBC indicated that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy prior to surgery and giving the drug for a year afterward improves event-free survival (EFS) over placebo by 37%.

Now, the researchers conducted a series of prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses, finding remarkably consistent EFS outcomes whether considering the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy, positive surgical margins, or disease characteristics such as nodal status and disease stage.

The analyses showed that the benefit with pembrolizumab over placebo was “robust,” said study presenter Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London.

“These results further support pembrolizumab plus platinum-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab after surgery as a new standard of care treatment regimen for patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC,” he said.

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 7.

Hope S. Rugo, MD, who was invited to comment on the findings, noted that, while the sensitivity analyses showed the benefit with pembrolizumab was seen across the board, the numbers in each group of interest were “very small, making any impact unlikely.”

She continued that there also remain a number of unanswered questions, chief among them being: “Does everybody need a checkpoint inhibitor? Perhaps studies ... could help us understand which patients might do well with chemotherapy alone.”

Dr. Rugo, who is professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, , added that “we need to understand the balance of risk and toxicity” asking whether there are patients whose risk of an immunotoxicity is “so high that we should not give them a checkpoint inhibitor.”

It is not clear what constitutes the optimal chemotherapy backbone. “Does everybody need carboplatin? Does everyone need a year of pembrolizumab, even with a pathologic complete response given the intriguing data from GeparNUEVO and previously the I-SPY trial?” she asked.

“Of course, we don’t know the answers to those questions,” she said, but it is nevertheless possible to draw a roadmap for the treatment of early TNBC, although the choice of adjuvant therapy following surgery is less clear.

Dr. Rugo conducted a Twitter poll to canvas opinion on what to give to patients following surgery, depending on whether or not they have a pathological complete response.

At 73%, most of almost 200 respondents said patients with a pathological complete response should continue pembrolizumab for 1 year, while 72% said that patients without a pathological complete response should receive combination therapy of pembrolizumab and either capecitabine or olaparib, depending on mutational status.

Dr. Schmid began his presentation by noting that KEYNOTE-522 was the first prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab in early TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

Previously presented results showed that adding neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful increase in pathological complete response, while continuing with adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery led to a clinically meaningful improvement in EFS.

Consequently, the Food and Drug Administration approved pembrolizumab in this setting for patients with high-risk early-stage TNBC.

He reminded the audience that the trial included 1,174 patients randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks alongside eight cycles of chemotherapy, followed by pembrolizumab over placebo alone for up to nine cycles after undergoing definitive surgery.

After a median follow-up of 39.1 months, 15.7% of patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced an event versus 23.9% of those in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio of 0.63 (P = .00031). At 36 months, the EFS rate was 84.5% with pembrolizumab and 76.8% in patients treated with placebo.

Dr. Schmid said that they then performed five prespecified sensitivity analyses, which revealed that the results were “consistent with the primary EFS in all five sensitivity analyses, showing the robustnesses of the event-free survival benefit in the pembrolizumab arm.”

The first analysis, he continued, is of “particular interest as it considered the impact of postsurgery new anticancer therapy. For example, the use of adjuvant capecitabine.”

Censoring 31 patients from the pembrolizumab arm who received the drug and 13 of those given placebo, the team found that the hazard ratio for EFS for pembrolizumab versus placebo was 0.64.

Removing “positive margin at last surgery” as part of the definition of EFS also did not change the results substantially, with the HR for EFS for pembrolizumab versus placebo at 0.65.

Subgroup analysis revealed “consistent EFS results,” Dr. Schmid said, irrespective of whether stratifying the patients by nodal status, overall disease stage, menopausal status, HER2 status, or lactate dehydrogenase levels.

While patients in both treatment arms who had nodal involvement had worse outcomes than those without, those in the pembrolizumab arm “still had improved outcomes, compared with placebo, suggesting that it provides benefit regardless of nodal status.”

“Similarly, the EFS benefit with pembrolizumab was irrespective of disease stage,” Dr. Schmid said. Although the EFS improvement was greater in patients with stage II rather than III disease, at a HR of 0.60 versus 0.68, it highlights “the importance of early intervention.”

He said that the “rate of adverse events with pembrolizumab was low, especially in the adjuvant setting.”

Following his presentation, Dr. Schmid was asked whether he would consider retrying immunotherapy in patients after progression on pembrolizumab.

He replied that this is currently a “data-free zone.”

However, he said: “If a patient responded immunotherapy initially, had a disease-free interval and then has recurrence, then I would consider, if the patient is PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] positive, at that time to add immunotherapy. We can’t say whether those patients will derive the same benefit” as that seen in randomized controlled trials in later stage TNBC, he added, “but there is, in my opinion, little to lose, especially if we have already established the patient tolerates immunotherapy well in that setting.”

Dr. Schmid continued that he “personally found it reassuring” that, in the current study, even patients without a complete pathological response “still showed a substantially better event-free survival compared to patients without immunotherapy, so I personally would consider immunotherapy for those patients when they relapse but we can discuss what the optimal disease-free interval is.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Both Dr. Rugo and Dr. Schmid reported relationships numerous pharmaceutical companies.

.

They say you are what you eat, but scientists have long wondered whether breastfeeding babies are what their mothers eat, too. Their question: How much of a nursing mother’s diet eventually plays a role in a child’s food preferences later in life?

The aroma, taste, and makeup of breast milk change from day to day, based mostly on the mother’s diet. But previous research has already shown that the foods a mother eats do not directly translate into the same smells and tastes of that food in breast milk. Some substances from the mother’s diet enter her breast milk, some don’t, and even ones that do may have a different scent or flavor than what the mother experiences.

But a new study suggests that the active ingredient in black pepper makes its way into breast milk and may help the infant develop a tolerance to pepper later. The researchers published their findings in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.
 

Pinch of pepper

The study authors thought that maybe some food preferences could result from sensory programming that occurs through breast milk in the first few months of life. Though past studies have looked at which odor-producing substances transfer into breast milk, not many have explored specific substances that give food its distinctive flavor, or even what makes up the taste of breast milk. So they decided to investigate what happens when a mother consumes a meal containing three specific compounds: those that give pepper, chili, and ginger their particularly pungent flavors.

The researchers recruited 18 healthy, nonsmoking, nursing mothers who were producing more than enough milk for their baby’s needs. Their breastfeeding children ranged in age from 8 weeks to 1 year old. The women all ate a curry dish after having spent 2 days avoiding onion, garlic, and the spices in the curry. Then they provided pumped breast milk samples at 1, 2, and 3 hours after eating the curry.

Within an hour of the women eating the curry, the scientists were able to detect piperine, the compound that gives black pepper its bite, in the mothers’ breast milk. They did not find the compounds from ginger, chili, or curcumin – the main active ingredient in turmeric – in the breast milk. The piperine remained there for several hours, but there wasn’t enough for an adult to be able to taste it. It wasn’t possible to reliably tell whether the infants could consciously detect the flavor, but the researchers don’t think it’s likely they did.

But the scientists do suggest it’s possible that the piperine in breast milk could regularly activate a protein that detects pungent or potentially harmful substances. This is the same protein that produces the sensation of heat when eating a spicy food. If the piperine frequently activates that protein in a nursing baby at levels too low for the baby to notice, it may increase the baby’s tolerance for similar spicy substances later in life.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that some compounds in a mother’s diet have the potential to influence a child’s taste preferences later.

A version of this story first appeared on WebMD.com.

They say you are what you eat, but scientists have long wondered whether breastfeeding babies are what their mothers eat, too. Their question: How much of a nursing mother’s diet eventually plays a role in a child’s food preferences later in life?

The aroma, taste, and makeup of breast milk change from day to day, based mostly on the mother’s diet. But previous research has already shown that the foods a mother eats do not directly translate into the same smells and tastes of that food in breast milk. Some substances from the mother’s diet enter her breast milk, some don’t, and even ones that do may have a different scent or flavor than what the mother experiences.

But a new study suggests that the active ingredient in black pepper makes its way into breast milk and may help the infant develop a tolerance to pepper later. The researchers published their findings in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.
 

Pinch of pepper

The study authors thought that maybe some food preferences could result from sensory programming that occurs through breast milk in the first few months of life. Though past studies have looked at which odor-producing substances transfer into breast milk, not many have explored specific substances that give food its distinctive flavor, or even what makes up the taste of breast milk. So they decided to investigate what happens when a mother consumes a meal containing three specific compounds: those that give pepper, chili, and ginger their particularly pungent flavors.

The researchers recruited 18 healthy, nonsmoking, nursing mothers who were producing more than enough milk for their baby’s needs. Their breastfeeding children ranged in age from 8 weeks to 1 year old. The women all ate a curry dish after having spent 2 days avoiding onion, garlic, and the spices in the curry. Then they provided pumped breast milk samples at 1, 2, and 3 hours after eating the curry.

Within an hour of the women eating the curry, the scientists were able to detect piperine, the compound that gives black pepper its bite, in the mothers’ breast milk. They did not find the compounds from ginger, chili, or curcumin – the main active ingredient in turmeric – in the breast milk. The piperine remained there for several hours, but there wasn’t enough for an adult to be able to taste it. It wasn’t possible to reliably tell whether the infants could consciously detect the flavor, but the researchers don’t think it’s likely they did.

But the scientists do suggest it’s possible that the piperine in breast milk could regularly activate a protein that detects pungent or potentially harmful substances. This is the same protein that produces the sensation of heat when eating a spicy food. If the piperine frequently activates that protein in a nursing baby at levels too low for the baby to notice, it may increase the baby’s tolerance for similar spicy substances later in life.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that some compounds in a mother’s diet have the potential to influence a child’s taste preferences later.

A version of this story first appeared on WebMD.com.

They say you are what you eat, but scientists have long wondered whether breastfeeding babies are what their mothers eat, too. Their question: How much of a nursing mother’s diet eventually plays a role in a child’s food preferences later in life?

The aroma, taste, and makeup of breast milk change from day to day, based mostly on the mother’s diet. But previous research has already shown that the foods a mother eats do not directly translate into the same smells and tastes of that food in breast milk. Some substances from the mother’s diet enter her breast milk, some don’t, and even ones that do may have a different scent or flavor than what the mother experiences.

But a new study suggests that the active ingredient in black pepper makes its way into breast milk and may help the infant develop a tolerance to pepper later. The researchers published their findings in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.
 

Pinch of pepper

The study authors thought that maybe some food preferences could result from sensory programming that occurs through breast milk in the first few months of life. Though past studies have looked at which odor-producing substances transfer into breast milk, not many have explored specific substances that give food its distinctive flavor, or even what makes up the taste of breast milk. So they decided to investigate what happens when a mother consumes a meal containing three specific compounds: those that give pepper, chili, and ginger their particularly pungent flavors.

The researchers recruited 18 healthy, nonsmoking, nursing mothers who were producing more than enough milk for their baby’s needs. Their breastfeeding children ranged in age from 8 weeks to 1 year old. The women all ate a curry dish after having spent 2 days avoiding onion, garlic, and the spices in the curry. Then they provided pumped breast milk samples at 1, 2, and 3 hours after eating the curry.

Within an hour of the women eating the curry, the scientists were able to detect piperine, the compound that gives black pepper its bite, in the mothers’ breast milk. They did not find the compounds from ginger, chili, or curcumin – the main active ingredient in turmeric – in the breast milk. The piperine remained there for several hours, but there wasn’t enough for an adult to be able to taste it. It wasn’t possible to reliably tell whether the infants could consciously detect the flavor, but the researchers don’t think it’s likely they did.

But the scientists do suggest it’s possible that the piperine in breast milk could regularly activate a protein that detects pungent or potentially harmful substances. This is the same protein that produces the sensation of heat when eating a spicy food. If the piperine frequently activates that protein in a nursing baby at levels too low for the baby to notice, it may increase the baby’s tolerance for similar spicy substances later in life.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that some compounds in a mother’s diet have the potential to influence a child’s taste preferences later.

A version of this story first appeared on WebMD.com.

Abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after removal of mifepristone prescribing restrictions in Canada, a new study shows.

“Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety,” senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a press release.

“This is the strongest evidence yet that it is safe to provide the abortion pill like most other prescriptions – meaning any doctor or nurse practitioner can prescribe, any pharmacist can dispense, and patients can take the pills if, when, and where they choose,” said lead author Laura Schummers, ScD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same department.

The findings “add to the accumulating evidence that removing restrictions from medication abortion is safe, effective, and improves access,” agreed Eve Espey, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, who was not part of the research team. “This is additional confirmation that it is safe for patients to receive abortion care medications in the ‘normal’ fashion, through a prescription available at a pharmacy,” she said in an interview.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared medical abortion use, safety, and effectiveness in the province of Ontario before the Canadian availability of mifepristone and after it became available without restrictions that are similar to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions in place for mifepristone in the United States.

Using linked administrative health data, the researchers created a population-based cohort of all Ontario residents aged 12-49 years who had received abortion services during the study period. In total, 195,183 abortions were performed in the period before mifepristone was approved (January 2012–December 2016), and 84,032 were performed after it was made available without restrictions (Nov. 7, 2017, through March 15, 2020). The vast majority of these abortions (89.3%) were surgical, with about 10% being medically induced, the authors reported.

The study found that, while the overall abortion rate declined over the study period (from 11.9 to 11.3 per 1,000 female residents), the proportion of medical abortions jumped sharply from 2.2% to 31.4%, and the rate of second-trimester abortions declined from 5.5% of all abortions to 5.1%.

Abortion safety outcomes within 6 weeks of abortion remained stable over the two study periods. This included severe adverse events (0.03% vs. 0.04%) such as blood transfusions, abdominal surgery, admission to an ICU, or sepsis during an abortion-related hospitalization; and complications (0.74% vs. 0.69%,) such as genital tract or pelvic infection, hemorrhage, embolism, shock, renal failure, damage to pelvic organs or tissues, and venous complications among other things.

There were slight declines in overall abortion effectiveness, but ongoing pregnancy rates “remained infrequent,” the authors noted. While there was a modest rise in the rates of subsequent uterine evacuation (from 1.0% to 2.2%), and ongoing intrauterine pregnancy continuing until delivery (from 0.03% to 0.08%), the rate of ectopic pregnancy diagnosed within 6 weeks after the abortion date remained stable (from 0.15% to 0.22%).

Canada was the first country in the world to remove all supplemental restrictions on the dispensing and administration of mifepristone, according to the press release. And while professional organizations have called for the removal of such restrictions “because they impede access to abortion services without improving safety,” high-quality data on this are lacking, they added.

The study’s finding are consistent with existing U.S. and U.K. data showing Food and Drug Administration REMS restrictions requiring abortion care medications to be dispensed in a clinic by a certified provider “are unnecessary and create obstacles to early abortion access,” said Dr. Espey. “For clinicians and patients in the U.S., it’s important to note that the increasing number of legislative restrictions on abortion, including medication abortion, are non–evidence based. Politically motivated false claims of safety concerns are countered by this study and others conducted during the pandemic when both the U.S. and U.K. removed REMS-type restrictions. These studies show that receiving abortion care through usual pharmacy channels and through telemedicine is safe, effective, and reduces barriers to care.”

Dr. Norman reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, providing expert witness services to the government of Ontario and Office of the Attorney General, and serving on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. No other researchers reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Espey reported no conflicts of interest. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Women’s Health Research Institute with the support of ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences).

Abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after removal of mifepristone prescribing restrictions in Canada, a new study shows.

“Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety,” senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a press release.

“This is the strongest evidence yet that it is safe to provide the abortion pill like most other prescriptions – meaning any doctor or nurse practitioner can prescribe, any pharmacist can dispense, and patients can take the pills if, when, and where they choose,” said lead author Laura Schummers, ScD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same department.

The findings “add to the accumulating evidence that removing restrictions from medication abortion is safe, effective, and improves access,” agreed Eve Espey, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, who was not part of the research team. “This is additional confirmation that it is safe for patients to receive abortion care medications in the ‘normal’ fashion, through a prescription available at a pharmacy,” she said in an interview.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared medical abortion use, safety, and effectiveness in the province of Ontario before the Canadian availability of mifepristone and after it became available without restrictions that are similar to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions in place for mifepristone in the United States.

Using linked administrative health data, the researchers created a population-based cohort of all Ontario residents aged 12-49 years who had received abortion services during the study period. In total, 195,183 abortions were performed in the period before mifepristone was approved (January 2012–December 2016), and 84,032 were performed after it was made available without restrictions (Nov. 7, 2017, through March 15, 2020). The vast majority of these abortions (89.3%) were surgical, with about 10% being medically induced, the authors reported.

The study found that, while the overall abortion rate declined over the study period (from 11.9 to 11.3 per 1,000 female residents), the proportion of medical abortions jumped sharply from 2.2% to 31.4%, and the rate of second-trimester abortions declined from 5.5% of all abortions to 5.1%.

Abortion safety outcomes within 6 weeks of abortion remained stable over the two study periods. This included severe adverse events (0.03% vs. 0.04%) such as blood transfusions, abdominal surgery, admission to an ICU, or sepsis during an abortion-related hospitalization; and complications (0.74% vs. 0.69%,) such as genital tract or pelvic infection, hemorrhage, embolism, shock, renal failure, damage to pelvic organs or tissues, and venous complications among other things.

There were slight declines in overall abortion effectiveness, but ongoing pregnancy rates “remained infrequent,” the authors noted. While there was a modest rise in the rates of subsequent uterine evacuation (from 1.0% to 2.2%), and ongoing intrauterine pregnancy continuing until delivery (from 0.03% to 0.08%), the rate of ectopic pregnancy diagnosed within 6 weeks after the abortion date remained stable (from 0.15% to 0.22%).

Canada was the first country in the world to remove all supplemental restrictions on the dispensing and administration of mifepristone, according to the press release. And while professional organizations have called for the removal of such restrictions “because they impede access to abortion services without improving safety,” high-quality data on this are lacking, they added.

The study’s finding are consistent with existing U.S. and U.K. data showing Food and Drug Administration REMS restrictions requiring abortion care medications to be dispensed in a clinic by a certified provider “are unnecessary and create obstacles to early abortion access,” said Dr. Espey. “For clinicians and patients in the U.S., it’s important to note that the increasing number of legislative restrictions on abortion, including medication abortion, are non–evidence based. Politically motivated false claims of safety concerns are countered by this study and others conducted during the pandemic when both the U.S. and U.K. removed REMS-type restrictions. These studies show that receiving abortion care through usual pharmacy channels and through telemedicine is safe, effective, and reduces barriers to care.”

Dr. Norman reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, providing expert witness services to the government of Ontario and Office of the Attorney General, and serving on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. No other researchers reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Espey reported no conflicts of interest. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Women’s Health Research Institute with the support of ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences).

Abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after removal of mifepristone prescribing restrictions in Canada, a new study shows.

“Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety,” senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a press release.

“This is the strongest evidence yet that it is safe to provide the abortion pill like most other prescriptions – meaning any doctor or nurse practitioner can prescribe, any pharmacist can dispense, and patients can take the pills if, when, and where they choose,” said lead author Laura Schummers, ScD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same department.

The findings “add to the accumulating evidence that removing restrictions from medication abortion is safe, effective, and improves access,” agreed Eve Espey, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, who was not part of the research team. “This is additional confirmation that it is safe for patients to receive abortion care medications in the ‘normal’ fashion, through a prescription available at a pharmacy,” she said in an interview.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared medical abortion use, safety, and effectiveness in the province of Ontario before the Canadian availability of mifepristone and after it became available without restrictions that are similar to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions in place for mifepristone in the United States.

Using linked administrative health data, the researchers created a population-based cohort of all Ontario residents aged 12-49 years who had received abortion services during the study period. In total, 195,183 abortions were performed in the period before mifepristone was approved (January 2012–December 2016), and 84,032 were performed after it was made available without restrictions (Nov. 7, 2017, through March 15, 2020). The vast majority of these abortions (89.3%) were surgical, with about 10% being medically induced, the authors reported.

The study found that, while the overall abortion rate declined over the study period (from 11.9 to 11.3 per 1,000 female residents), the proportion of medical abortions jumped sharply from 2.2% to 31.4%, and the rate of second-trimester abortions declined from 5.5% of all abortions to 5.1%.

Abortion safety outcomes within 6 weeks of abortion remained stable over the two study periods. This included severe adverse events (0.03% vs. 0.04%) such as blood transfusions, abdominal surgery, admission to an ICU, or sepsis during an abortion-related hospitalization; and complications (0.74% vs. 0.69%,) such as genital tract or pelvic infection, hemorrhage, embolism, shock, renal failure, damage to pelvic organs or tissues, and venous complications among other things.

There were slight declines in overall abortion effectiveness, but ongoing pregnancy rates “remained infrequent,” the authors noted. While there was a modest rise in the rates of subsequent uterine evacuation (from 1.0% to 2.2%), and ongoing intrauterine pregnancy continuing until delivery (from 0.03% to 0.08%), the rate of ectopic pregnancy diagnosed within 6 weeks after the abortion date remained stable (from 0.15% to 0.22%).

Canada was the first country in the world to remove all supplemental restrictions on the dispensing and administration of mifepristone, according to the press release. And while professional organizations have called for the removal of such restrictions “because they impede access to abortion services without improving safety,” high-quality data on this are lacking, they added.

The study’s finding are consistent with existing U.S. and U.K. data showing Food and Drug Administration REMS restrictions requiring abortion care medications to be dispensed in a clinic by a certified provider “are unnecessary and create obstacles to early abortion access,” said Dr. Espey. “For clinicians and patients in the U.S., it’s important to note that the increasing number of legislative restrictions on abortion, including medication abortion, are non–evidence based. Politically motivated false claims of safety concerns are countered by this study and others conducted during the pandemic when both the U.S. and U.K. removed REMS-type restrictions. These studies show that receiving abortion care through usual pharmacy channels and through telemedicine is safe, effective, and reduces barriers to care.”

Dr. Norman reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, providing expert witness services to the government of Ontario and Office of the Attorney General, and serving on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. No other researchers reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Espey reported no conflicts of interest. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Women’s Health Research Institute with the support of ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences).

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

In recent weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has greatly expanded recommendations for boosters for vaccinations against COVID-19.

These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.

The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.

The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.¹

But what about a fourth dose?  There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one.  For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series.  This distinction  may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.

Boosters in women who are pregnant

The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,² along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.

The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.³

I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
 

Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years

Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.

Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.¹

Booster brand for those over 18 years?

Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.

The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
 

Take home message

Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.

2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.

3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.

In recent weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has greatly expanded recommendations for boosters for vaccinations against COVID-19.

These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.

The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.

The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.¹

But what about a fourth dose?  There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one.  For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series.  This distinction  may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.

Boosters in women who are pregnant

The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,² along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.

The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.³

I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
 

Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years

Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.

Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.¹

Booster brand for those over 18 years?

Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.

The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
 

Take home message

Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.

2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.

3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.

In recent weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has greatly expanded recommendations for boosters for vaccinations against COVID-19.

These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.

The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.

The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.¹

But what about a fourth dose?  There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one.  For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series.  This distinction  may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.

Boosters in women who are pregnant

The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,² along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.

The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.³

I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
 

Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years

Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.

Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.¹

Booster brand for those over 18 years?

Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.

The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
 

Take home message

Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.

2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.

3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.