Ob.Gyn. News

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Implementation of a standardized induction of labor protocol had no significant effect on the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with obesity, based on data from more than 5000 individuals.

Previous research has shown that the risk for cesarean delivery increases by 5% with each 1-kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) among nulliparous patients, said Melissa Riegel, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (abstract 82).

Research on the relationship between obesity and higher cesarean delivery rates “has been clouded by the inability to reduce variation in care,” Dr. Riegel said at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Failed induction of labor (IOL) is a leading indicator for cesarean delivery, and cesarean delivery is 80% more likely in patients with obesity undergoing IOL than in normal-weight patients, Dr. Riegel said.

Possible explanations for these differences include provider factors such as variability in care management, conscious and unconscious biases, or physiologic differences in patients with obesity such as elevated hormones, differences in the labor curve, and higher doses of oxytocin and prostaglandins, Dr. Riegel said.

Dr. Riegel and colleagues hypothesized that differences in cesarean delivery rates would persist despite a standardized labor induction protocol, thereby supporting the effects of factors other than variations in care on increased cesarean delivery risk after IOL in patients with obesity.

The researchers reviewed data from two sites comparing 2-year periods before and after implementation of an IOL protocol from 2018 to 2022. The study population included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies at term who underwent IOL with intact membranes and unfavorable cervices, and had a BMI of at least 30 kg/m² at delivery. The preimplementation group (PRE) included 2480 individuals and the postimplementation group (POST) included 2651 individuals. Patients were divided into weight classes based on BMI: 30-34.9; 35-39.9; ≥40.

The standardized protocol consisted of active labor management with cervical exams, with an amniotomy by the time of the first exam with 4 cm or greater cervical dilation, and further intervention with medication such as oxytocin or an intrauterine pressure catheter if no cervical change was noted after 2 hours.

In a multivariate analysis, the overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.9% before the protocol implementation and 26.0% in the postimplementation group. There were no differences in the risk of cesarean delivery in any obesity class from the PRE to POST period.

In addition, no significant differences appeared in the secondary outcomes of duration of labor, maternal morbidity, or neonatal morbidity, Dr. Riegel said. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the most common reason for cesarean delivery across all obesity classes and the PRE and POST groups.

Study limitations included the use of data from only two sites, but the results were strengthened by the large sample size, said Dr. Reigel. The results indicate that reducing variation in IOL management had no significant effect on the relationship between obesity and cesarean delivery and support underlying physiologic explanations, she said.
 

Making the Case for Physiology

“By standardizing induction practices, we were able to minimize differences in care and better answer why the increased cesarean delivery rate exists in this patient population,” Dr. Riegel said in an interview. The findings were in line with the primary hypothesis that standardized induction would not affect cesarean delivery rates in patients with obesity, she said. Instead, the findings support potential physiologic differences as “the driving force behind this relationship,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There is a role for translational work to investigate the specific biological changes in patients with obesity that might contribute to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and there is also a role for investigating the effectiveness of different labor induction interventions specifically in patients with obesity,” Dr. Riegel said.
 

Different Induction Protocols Needed for Obese Patients?

“Given that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are continuing to increase in the United States, this study is critical, as we know that both cesarean delivery and obesity are driving factors in increasing maternal morbidity,” said Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, in an interview.

However, the novel takeaway message from the current study is that patients with obesity were more likely to require cesarean delivery even with a protocol in which variation in labor induction techniques are minimized, said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study. “This leads to the question of [whether] we should have different standards or protocols for our patients with obesity, as well as a need for clear counseling for these patients early on in pregnancy,” she said.

As for further research, “It would be interesting to see if the risk of cesarean delivery changed based on class of obesity, and the primary drivers of cesarean delivery in this study,” Dr. Platner said. “Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much pitocin was needed for patients, based on their BMI category, to achieve successful vaginal delivery,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Implementation of a standardized induction of labor protocol had no significant effect on the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with obesity, based on data from more than 5000 individuals.

Previous research has shown that the risk for cesarean delivery increases by 5% with each 1-kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) among nulliparous patients, said Melissa Riegel, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (abstract 82).

Research on the relationship between obesity and higher cesarean delivery rates “has been clouded by the inability to reduce variation in care,” Dr. Riegel said at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Failed induction of labor (IOL) is a leading indicator for cesarean delivery, and cesarean delivery is 80% more likely in patients with obesity undergoing IOL than in normal-weight patients, Dr. Riegel said.

Possible explanations for these differences include provider factors such as variability in care management, conscious and unconscious biases, or physiologic differences in patients with obesity such as elevated hormones, differences in the labor curve, and higher doses of oxytocin and prostaglandins, Dr. Riegel said.

Dr. Riegel and colleagues hypothesized that differences in cesarean delivery rates would persist despite a standardized labor induction protocol, thereby supporting the effects of factors other than variations in care on increased cesarean delivery risk after IOL in patients with obesity.

The researchers reviewed data from two sites comparing 2-year periods before and after implementation of an IOL protocol from 2018 to 2022. The study population included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies at term who underwent IOL with intact membranes and unfavorable cervices, and had a BMI of at least 30 kg/m² at delivery. The preimplementation group (PRE) included 2480 individuals and the postimplementation group (POST) included 2651 individuals. Patients were divided into weight classes based on BMI: 30-34.9; 35-39.9; ≥40.

The standardized protocol consisted of active labor management with cervical exams, with an amniotomy by the time of the first exam with 4 cm or greater cervical dilation, and further intervention with medication such as oxytocin or an intrauterine pressure catheter if no cervical change was noted after 2 hours.

In a multivariate analysis, the overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.9% before the protocol implementation and 26.0% in the postimplementation group. There were no differences in the risk of cesarean delivery in any obesity class from the PRE to POST period.

In addition, no significant differences appeared in the secondary outcomes of duration of labor, maternal morbidity, or neonatal morbidity, Dr. Riegel said. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the most common reason for cesarean delivery across all obesity classes and the PRE and POST groups.

Study limitations included the use of data from only two sites, but the results were strengthened by the large sample size, said Dr. Reigel. The results indicate that reducing variation in IOL management had no significant effect on the relationship between obesity and cesarean delivery and support underlying physiologic explanations, she said.
 

Making the Case for Physiology

“By standardizing induction practices, we were able to minimize differences in care and better answer why the increased cesarean delivery rate exists in this patient population,” Dr. Riegel said in an interview. The findings were in line with the primary hypothesis that standardized induction would not affect cesarean delivery rates in patients with obesity, she said. Instead, the findings support potential physiologic differences as “the driving force behind this relationship,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There is a role for translational work to investigate the specific biological changes in patients with obesity that might contribute to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and there is also a role for investigating the effectiveness of different labor induction interventions specifically in patients with obesity,” Dr. Riegel said.
 

Different Induction Protocols Needed for Obese Patients?

“Given that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are continuing to increase in the United States, this study is critical, as we know that both cesarean delivery and obesity are driving factors in increasing maternal morbidity,” said Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, in an interview.

However, the novel takeaway message from the current study is that patients with obesity were more likely to require cesarean delivery even with a protocol in which variation in labor induction techniques are minimized, said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study. “This leads to the question of [whether] we should have different standards or protocols for our patients with obesity, as well as a need for clear counseling for these patients early on in pregnancy,” she said.

As for further research, “It would be interesting to see if the risk of cesarean delivery changed based on class of obesity, and the primary drivers of cesarean delivery in this study,” Dr. Platner said. “Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much pitocin was needed for patients, based on their BMI category, to achieve successful vaginal delivery,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Implementation of a standardized induction of labor protocol had no significant effect on the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with obesity, based on data from more than 5000 individuals.

Previous research has shown that the risk for cesarean delivery increases by 5% with each 1-kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) among nulliparous patients, said Melissa Riegel, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (abstract 82).

Research on the relationship between obesity and higher cesarean delivery rates “has been clouded by the inability to reduce variation in care,” Dr. Riegel said at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Failed induction of labor (IOL) is a leading indicator for cesarean delivery, and cesarean delivery is 80% more likely in patients with obesity undergoing IOL than in normal-weight patients, Dr. Riegel said.

Possible explanations for these differences include provider factors such as variability in care management, conscious and unconscious biases, or physiologic differences in patients with obesity such as elevated hormones, differences in the labor curve, and higher doses of oxytocin and prostaglandins, Dr. Riegel said.

Dr. Riegel and colleagues hypothesized that differences in cesarean delivery rates would persist despite a standardized labor induction protocol, thereby supporting the effects of factors other than variations in care on increased cesarean delivery risk after IOL in patients with obesity.

The researchers reviewed data from two sites comparing 2-year periods before and after implementation of an IOL protocol from 2018 to 2022. The study population included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies at term who underwent IOL with intact membranes and unfavorable cervices, and had a BMI of at least 30 kg/m² at delivery. The preimplementation group (PRE) included 2480 individuals and the postimplementation group (POST) included 2651 individuals. Patients were divided into weight classes based on BMI: 30-34.9; 35-39.9; ≥40.

The standardized protocol consisted of active labor management with cervical exams, with an amniotomy by the time of the first exam with 4 cm or greater cervical dilation, and further intervention with medication such as oxytocin or an intrauterine pressure catheter if no cervical change was noted after 2 hours.

In a multivariate analysis, the overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.9% before the protocol implementation and 26.0% in the postimplementation group. There were no differences in the risk of cesarean delivery in any obesity class from the PRE to POST period.

In addition, no significant differences appeared in the secondary outcomes of duration of labor, maternal morbidity, or neonatal morbidity, Dr. Riegel said. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the most common reason for cesarean delivery across all obesity classes and the PRE and POST groups.

Study limitations included the use of data from only two sites, but the results were strengthened by the large sample size, said Dr. Reigel. The results indicate that reducing variation in IOL management had no significant effect on the relationship between obesity and cesarean delivery and support underlying physiologic explanations, she said.
 

Making the Case for Physiology

“By standardizing induction practices, we were able to minimize differences in care and better answer why the increased cesarean delivery rate exists in this patient population,” Dr. Riegel said in an interview. The findings were in line with the primary hypothesis that standardized induction would not affect cesarean delivery rates in patients with obesity, she said. Instead, the findings support potential physiologic differences as “the driving force behind this relationship,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There is a role for translational work to investigate the specific biological changes in patients with obesity that might contribute to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and there is also a role for investigating the effectiveness of different labor induction interventions specifically in patients with obesity,” Dr. Riegel said.
 

Different Induction Protocols Needed for Obese Patients?

“Given that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are continuing to increase in the United States, this study is critical, as we know that both cesarean delivery and obesity are driving factors in increasing maternal morbidity,” said Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, in an interview.

However, the novel takeaway message from the current study is that patients with obesity were more likely to require cesarean delivery even with a protocol in which variation in labor induction techniques are minimized, said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study. “This leads to the question of [whether] we should have different standards or protocols for our patients with obesity, as well as a need for clear counseling for these patients early on in pregnancy,” she said.

As for further research, “It would be interesting to see if the risk of cesarean delivery changed based on class of obesity, and the primary drivers of cesarean delivery in this study,” Dr. Platner said. “Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much pitocin was needed for patients, based on their BMI category, to achieve successful vaginal delivery,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Imagine, if you will, the great Cathedral of Our Lady of Correlation. You walk through the majestic oak doors depicting the link between ice cream sales and shark attacks, past the rose window depicting the cardiovascular benefits of red wine, and down the aisles frescoed in dramatic images showing how Facebook usage is associated with less life satisfaction. And then you reach the altar, the holy of holies where, emblazoned in shimmering pyrite, you see the patron saint of this church: vitamin D.

Yes, if you’ve watched this space, then you know that I have little truck with the wildly popular supplement. In all of clinical research, I believe that there is no molecule with stronger data for correlation and weaker data for causation.

Low serum vitamin D levels have been linked to higher risks for heart disease, cancer, falls, COVID, dementia, C diff, and others. And yet, when we do randomized trials of vitamin D supplementation — the thing that can prove that the low level was causally linked to the outcome of interest — we get negative results.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Imagine, if you will, the great Cathedral of Our Lady of Correlation. You walk through the majestic oak doors depicting the link between ice cream sales and shark attacks, past the rose window depicting the cardiovascular benefits of red wine, and down the aisles frescoed in dramatic images showing how Facebook usage is associated with less life satisfaction. And then you reach the altar, the holy of holies where, emblazoned in shimmering pyrite, you see the patron saint of this church: vitamin D.

Yes, if you’ve watched this space, then you know that I have little truck with the wildly popular supplement. In all of clinical research, I believe that there is no molecule with stronger data for correlation and weaker data for causation.

Low serum vitamin D levels have been linked to higher risks for heart disease, cancer, falls, COVID, dementia, C diff, and others. And yet, when we do randomized trials of vitamin D supplementation — the thing that can prove that the low level was causally linked to the outcome of interest — we get negative results.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Imagine, if you will, the great Cathedral of Our Lady of Correlation. You walk through the majestic oak doors depicting the link between ice cream sales and shark attacks, past the rose window depicting the cardiovascular benefits of red wine, and down the aisles frescoed in dramatic images showing how Facebook usage is associated with less life satisfaction. And then you reach the altar, the holy of holies where, emblazoned in shimmering pyrite, you see the patron saint of this church: vitamin D.

Yes, if you’ve watched this space, then you know that I have little truck with the wildly popular supplement. In all of clinical research, I believe that there is no molecule with stronger data for correlation and weaker data for causation.

Low serum vitamin D levels have been linked to higher risks for heart disease, cancer, falls, COVID, dementia, C diff, and others. And yet, when we do randomized trials of vitamin D supplementation — the thing that can prove that the low level was causally linked to the outcome of interest — we get negative results.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now.

Some doctors may be scratching their heads over a new analysis reporting that combined calcium and vitamin D (CaD) supplements appear to be associated with a slight 6% increase in cardiovascular (CVD) mortality, a slight 7% decrease in cancer risk, and no effect on osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women.

The study, in Annals of Internal Medicine, found no effect of supplementation on all-cause mortality.

The findings emerged from an analysis of more than 20 years’ follow-up data on a randomized trial in postmenopausal women conducted as part of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI).

Cynthia A. Thomson, PhD, RD, first author and cancer prevention scientist at the Arizona Cancer Center and a professor of health promotion sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson said the findings recommend individualized assessment of the need for supplements for older women as they consider them in hopes of preventing fractures.

Arizona Cancer Center

Study Details

The investigators conducted postintervention follow-up of the WHI’s 7-year multicenter randomized intervention trial of CaD vs placebo.

Since existing evidence of long-term health outcomes was limited, the trial, begun in 1999 and closed in 2005, enrolled 36,282 postmenopausal women (mean age 62) with no history of breast or colorectal cancer. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to supplementation with 1000 mg of calcium carbonate (400 mg elemental calcium) plus 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily or placebo, taken twice daily in half doses.

Study outcomes were incidence of CRC, total and invasive breast cancer; disease-specific and all-cause mortality; total CVD; and hip fracture measured through December 2020, with analyses stratified by personal supplement usage.

Cancer. CaD was associated with reduced incident total cancer, CRC, and invasive breast cancer — notably among participants not taking CaD before randomization. Cancer incidence estimates varied widely, the authors noted, when stratified by supplement use before randomization. Noting that CaD seemed to have more cancer-related impact in those without prior supplementation, the authors suggested supplementation may affect cancer biology primarily by augmenting nutrient insufficiency.

An estimated 7% reduction in cancer mortality was observed after a median cumulative follow-up of 22.3 years: 1817 vs 1943 deaths (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99).

CVD. An estimated 6% increase in CVD mortality was seen in the CaD group: 2621 vs 2420 deaths (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12). Pretrial supplement users were found to be at higher CVD risk.

Hip fracture. No effect on hip fracture risk was measured, but the authors cautioned that hip fracture and CVD outcomes were available only for a subset of participants, and the effects of calcium alone vs vitamin D alone vs the combination could not be disentangled.

In a small subgroup analysis, some CaD users were seen to respond in terms of bone mineral density but since only 4 of the study’s 40 sites collected such information, the study was underpowered to examine the effect. ”Many other studies, however, show a response to supplementation in women who already have bone mineral deficits,” Dr. Thomson said.
 

The Calcification Question

One of the possible mechanisms of harm is that high-dose calcium supplements can increase the rate of blood coagulation and promote vascular calcification, said Emma Laing, PhD, RD, director of dietetics at the University of Georgia in Athens and a spokesperson for the Chicago-based Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

University of Georgia

“Other factors that should be considered when determining a patient’s CVD risk are race, genetic predisposition, medical and social history, response to stress, and lifestyle behaviors, as well as the length of time supplements have been consumed,” added Dr. Laing, who was not involved in the WHI analysis.

“We asked ourselves if CaD supplements might contribute to calcification of the coronary arteries, since some believe this to be the case, although the literature is mixed,” said Dr. Thomson.

“So we did a shorter ancillary study in a small sample of several hundred [women] to see if there was any increase in calcification” and no difference was seen on imaging across the two arms. “However, women who were already on supplements before entering the study seemed to be at higher CVD risk,” she said.

Added study coauthor JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston: “With no increase or decrease in coronary artery calcium at the end of the trial, we don’t believe starting or continuing calcium/vitamin D supplements should require screening for coronary artery disease.”

Harvard Medical School

Vitamin D Supplementation

As for vitamin D only supplementation, an updated meta-analysis including more than 83,000 individuals showed that it confers no cardiovascular protection and is therefore not indicated for this purpose.
 

Practice Considerations

Offering an outsider’s perspective, Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, an internist in Houston specializing in primary care for older high-risk adults, said: “Unfortunately, this latest study continues the trend of creating more questions than answers. If the adverse outcome of CVD death is a result of supplementation, it is unclear if this is due to the vitamin D, the calcium, or both. And it is unclear if this is dose dependent, time dependent, or due to concurrent risk factors unique to certain populations.

Dr. Candler

“It is recommended that patients at risk of osteoporosis based on age, sex, medications, and lifestyle be screened for osteoporosis and treated accordingly, including supplementation with CaD,” Dr. Candler said. “It remains unclear whether supplementation with CaD in the absence of osteoporosis and osteopenia is net beneficial or harmful, and at this time I would not recommend it to my patients.” 

Added Dr. Manson: “The very small increase seen in cardiovascular mortality wouldn’t be a reason to discontinue supplementation among women who have been advised by their healthcare providers to take these supplements for bone health or other purposes.

“Among those at usual risk of fracture, we recommend trying to obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D from food sources first and to use supplements only for the purpose of filling gaps in intake,” Dr. Manson continued. Overall, the findings support the national recommended dietary allowances for daily calcium intake of 1200 mg and daily vitamin D intake of 600-800 IU among postmenopausal women for maintenance of bone health, she said.

While a 2022 study found that vitamin D supplementation alone did not prevent fractures in healthy adults, other research has shown that a calcium/vitamin D combination is more likely to protect the skeleton.

“Patients at risk for fractures will probably benefit from calcium and/or vitamin D supplementation if they do not meet dietary intake requirements, have malabsorption syndromes, are taking medications that affect nutrient absorption, or if they are older and not regularly exposed to sunlight,” said Dr. Laing. “A combination of biochemical, imaging, functional, and dietary intake data can help determine if a supplement is warranted.”

She stressed that additional research is needed in more diverse populations before changing practice guidelines. “However, doctors should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of prescribing supplements for each patient.”

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Thomson disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Manson reported a relationship with Mars Edge. Multiple authors reported grant support from government funding agencies. The outside commentators had no relevant competing interests to disclose.

Some doctors may be scratching their heads over a new analysis reporting that combined calcium and vitamin D (CaD) supplements appear to be associated with a slight 6% increase in cardiovascular (CVD) mortality, a slight 7% decrease in cancer risk, and no effect on osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women.

The study, in Annals of Internal Medicine, found no effect of supplementation on all-cause mortality.

The findings emerged from an analysis of more than 20 years’ follow-up data on a randomized trial in postmenopausal women conducted as part of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI).

Cynthia A. Thomson, PhD, RD, first author and cancer prevention scientist at the Arizona Cancer Center and a professor of health promotion sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson said the findings recommend individualized assessment of the need for supplements for older women as they consider them in hopes of preventing fractures.

Arizona Cancer Center

Study Details

The investigators conducted postintervention follow-up of the WHI’s 7-year multicenter randomized intervention trial of CaD vs placebo.

Since existing evidence of long-term health outcomes was limited, the trial, begun in 1999 and closed in 2005, enrolled 36,282 postmenopausal women (mean age 62) with no history of breast or colorectal cancer. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to supplementation with 1000 mg of calcium carbonate (400 mg elemental calcium) plus 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily or placebo, taken twice daily in half doses.

Study outcomes were incidence of CRC, total and invasive breast cancer; disease-specific and all-cause mortality; total CVD; and hip fracture measured through December 2020, with analyses stratified by personal supplement usage.

Cancer. CaD was associated with reduced incident total cancer, CRC, and invasive breast cancer — notably among participants not taking CaD before randomization. Cancer incidence estimates varied widely, the authors noted, when stratified by supplement use before randomization. Noting that CaD seemed to have more cancer-related impact in those without prior supplementation, the authors suggested supplementation may affect cancer biology primarily by augmenting nutrient insufficiency.

An estimated 7% reduction in cancer mortality was observed after a median cumulative follow-up of 22.3 years: 1817 vs 1943 deaths (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99).

CVD. An estimated 6% increase in CVD mortality was seen in the CaD group: 2621 vs 2420 deaths (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12). Pretrial supplement users were found to be at higher CVD risk.

Hip fracture. No effect on hip fracture risk was measured, but the authors cautioned that hip fracture and CVD outcomes were available only for a subset of participants, and the effects of calcium alone vs vitamin D alone vs the combination could not be disentangled.

In a small subgroup analysis, some CaD users were seen to respond in terms of bone mineral density but since only 4 of the study’s 40 sites collected such information, the study was underpowered to examine the effect. ”Many other studies, however, show a response to supplementation in women who already have bone mineral deficits,” Dr. Thomson said.
 

The Calcification Question

One of the possible mechanisms of harm is that high-dose calcium supplements can increase the rate of blood coagulation and promote vascular calcification, said Emma Laing, PhD, RD, director of dietetics at the University of Georgia in Athens and a spokesperson for the Chicago-based Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

University of Georgia

“Other factors that should be considered when determining a patient’s CVD risk are race, genetic predisposition, medical and social history, response to stress, and lifestyle behaviors, as well as the length of time supplements have been consumed,” added Dr. Laing, who was not involved in the WHI analysis.

“We asked ourselves if CaD supplements might contribute to calcification of the coronary arteries, since some believe this to be the case, although the literature is mixed,” said Dr. Thomson.

“So we did a shorter ancillary study in a small sample of several hundred [women] to see if there was any increase in calcification” and no difference was seen on imaging across the two arms. “However, women who were already on supplements before entering the study seemed to be at higher CVD risk,” she said.

Added study coauthor JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston: “With no increase or decrease in coronary artery calcium at the end of the trial, we don’t believe starting or continuing calcium/vitamin D supplements should require screening for coronary artery disease.”

Harvard Medical School

Vitamin D Supplementation

As for vitamin D only supplementation, an updated meta-analysis including more than 83,000 individuals showed that it confers no cardiovascular protection and is therefore not indicated for this purpose.
 

Practice Considerations

Offering an outsider’s perspective, Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, an internist in Houston specializing in primary care for older high-risk adults, said: “Unfortunately, this latest study continues the trend of creating more questions than answers. If the adverse outcome of CVD death is a result of supplementation, it is unclear if this is due to the vitamin D, the calcium, or both. And it is unclear if this is dose dependent, time dependent, or due to concurrent risk factors unique to certain populations.

Dr. Candler

“It is recommended that patients at risk of osteoporosis based on age, sex, medications, and lifestyle be screened for osteoporosis and treated accordingly, including supplementation with CaD,” Dr. Candler said. “It remains unclear whether supplementation with CaD in the absence of osteoporosis and osteopenia is net beneficial or harmful, and at this time I would not recommend it to my patients.” 

Added Dr. Manson: “The very small increase seen in cardiovascular mortality wouldn’t be a reason to discontinue supplementation among women who have been advised by their healthcare providers to take these supplements for bone health or other purposes.

“Among those at usual risk of fracture, we recommend trying to obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D from food sources first and to use supplements only for the purpose of filling gaps in intake,” Dr. Manson continued. Overall, the findings support the national recommended dietary allowances for daily calcium intake of 1200 mg and daily vitamin D intake of 600-800 IU among postmenopausal women for maintenance of bone health, she said.

While a 2022 study found that vitamin D supplementation alone did not prevent fractures in healthy adults, other research has shown that a calcium/vitamin D combination is more likely to protect the skeleton.

“Patients at risk for fractures will probably benefit from calcium and/or vitamin D supplementation if they do not meet dietary intake requirements, have malabsorption syndromes, are taking medications that affect nutrient absorption, or if they are older and not regularly exposed to sunlight,” said Dr. Laing. “A combination of biochemical, imaging, functional, and dietary intake data can help determine if a supplement is warranted.”

She stressed that additional research is needed in more diverse populations before changing practice guidelines. “However, doctors should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of prescribing supplements for each patient.”

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Thomson disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Manson reported a relationship with Mars Edge. Multiple authors reported grant support from government funding agencies. The outside commentators had no relevant competing interests to disclose.

Some doctors may be scratching their heads over a new analysis reporting that combined calcium and vitamin D (CaD) supplements appear to be associated with a slight 6% increase in cardiovascular (CVD) mortality, a slight 7% decrease in cancer risk, and no effect on osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women.

The study, in Annals of Internal Medicine, found no effect of supplementation on all-cause mortality.

The findings emerged from an analysis of more than 20 years’ follow-up data on a randomized trial in postmenopausal women conducted as part of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI).

Cynthia A. Thomson, PhD, RD, first author and cancer prevention scientist at the Arizona Cancer Center and a professor of health promotion sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson said the findings recommend individualized assessment of the need for supplements for older women as they consider them in hopes of preventing fractures.

Arizona Cancer Center

Study Details

The investigators conducted postintervention follow-up of the WHI’s 7-year multicenter randomized intervention trial of CaD vs placebo.

Since existing evidence of long-term health outcomes was limited, the trial, begun in 1999 and closed in 2005, enrolled 36,282 postmenopausal women (mean age 62) with no history of breast or colorectal cancer. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to supplementation with 1000 mg of calcium carbonate (400 mg elemental calcium) plus 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily or placebo, taken twice daily in half doses.

Study outcomes were incidence of CRC, total and invasive breast cancer; disease-specific and all-cause mortality; total CVD; and hip fracture measured through December 2020, with analyses stratified by personal supplement usage.

Cancer. CaD was associated with reduced incident total cancer, CRC, and invasive breast cancer — notably among participants not taking CaD before randomization. Cancer incidence estimates varied widely, the authors noted, when stratified by supplement use before randomization. Noting that CaD seemed to have more cancer-related impact in those without prior supplementation, the authors suggested supplementation may affect cancer biology primarily by augmenting nutrient insufficiency.

An estimated 7% reduction in cancer mortality was observed after a median cumulative follow-up of 22.3 years: 1817 vs 1943 deaths (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99).

CVD. An estimated 6% increase in CVD mortality was seen in the CaD group: 2621 vs 2420 deaths (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12). Pretrial supplement users were found to be at higher CVD risk.

Hip fracture. No effect on hip fracture risk was measured, but the authors cautioned that hip fracture and CVD outcomes were available only for a subset of participants, and the effects of calcium alone vs vitamin D alone vs the combination could not be disentangled.

In a small subgroup analysis, some CaD users were seen to respond in terms of bone mineral density but since only 4 of the study’s 40 sites collected such information, the study was underpowered to examine the effect. ”Many other studies, however, show a response to supplementation in women who already have bone mineral deficits,” Dr. Thomson said.
 

The Calcification Question

One of the possible mechanisms of harm is that high-dose calcium supplements can increase the rate of blood coagulation and promote vascular calcification, said Emma Laing, PhD, RD, director of dietetics at the University of Georgia in Athens and a spokesperson for the Chicago-based Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

University of Georgia

“Other factors that should be considered when determining a patient’s CVD risk are race, genetic predisposition, medical and social history, response to stress, and lifestyle behaviors, as well as the length of time supplements have been consumed,” added Dr. Laing, who was not involved in the WHI analysis.

“We asked ourselves if CaD supplements might contribute to calcification of the coronary arteries, since some believe this to be the case, although the literature is mixed,” said Dr. Thomson.

“So we did a shorter ancillary study in a small sample of several hundred [women] to see if there was any increase in calcification” and no difference was seen on imaging across the two arms. “However, women who were already on supplements before entering the study seemed to be at higher CVD risk,” she said.

Added study coauthor JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston: “With no increase or decrease in coronary artery calcium at the end of the trial, we don’t believe starting or continuing calcium/vitamin D supplements should require screening for coronary artery disease.”

Harvard Medical School

Vitamin D Supplementation

As for vitamin D only supplementation, an updated meta-analysis including more than 83,000 individuals showed that it confers no cardiovascular protection and is therefore not indicated for this purpose.
 

Practice Considerations

Offering an outsider’s perspective, Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, an internist in Houston specializing in primary care for older high-risk adults, said: “Unfortunately, this latest study continues the trend of creating more questions than answers. If the adverse outcome of CVD death is a result of supplementation, it is unclear if this is due to the vitamin D, the calcium, or both. And it is unclear if this is dose dependent, time dependent, or due to concurrent risk factors unique to certain populations.

Dr. Candler

“It is recommended that patients at risk of osteoporosis based on age, sex, medications, and lifestyle be screened for osteoporosis and treated accordingly, including supplementation with CaD,” Dr. Candler said. “It remains unclear whether supplementation with CaD in the absence of osteoporosis and osteopenia is net beneficial or harmful, and at this time I would not recommend it to my patients.” 

Added Dr. Manson: “The very small increase seen in cardiovascular mortality wouldn’t be a reason to discontinue supplementation among women who have been advised by their healthcare providers to take these supplements for bone health or other purposes.

“Among those at usual risk of fracture, we recommend trying to obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D from food sources first and to use supplements only for the purpose of filling gaps in intake,” Dr. Manson continued. Overall, the findings support the national recommended dietary allowances for daily calcium intake of 1200 mg and daily vitamin D intake of 600-800 IU among postmenopausal women for maintenance of bone health, she said.

While a 2022 study found that vitamin D supplementation alone did not prevent fractures in healthy adults, other research has shown that a calcium/vitamin D combination is more likely to protect the skeleton.

“Patients at risk for fractures will probably benefit from calcium and/or vitamin D supplementation if they do not meet dietary intake requirements, have malabsorption syndromes, are taking medications that affect nutrient absorption, or if they are older and not regularly exposed to sunlight,” said Dr. Laing. “A combination of biochemical, imaging, functional, and dietary intake data can help determine if a supplement is warranted.”

She stressed that additional research is needed in more diverse populations before changing practice guidelines. “However, doctors should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of prescribing supplements for each patient.”

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Thomson disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Manson reported a relationship with Mars Edge. Multiple authors reported grant support from government funding agencies. The outside commentators had no relevant competing interests to disclose.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer, according to a new study of more than 44,000 individuals.

The conditions that comprise metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2019 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.
 

What Does New Study Add to Other Research on Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk?

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years. The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

 What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

The results suggest that monitoring and managing metabolic syndrome could help reduce cancer risk, the researchers concluded. 

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, said in a press release accompanying the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk, he noted. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he said in a statement.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer, according to a new study of more than 44,000 individuals.

The conditions that comprise metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2019 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.
 

What Does New Study Add to Other Research on Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk?

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years. The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

 What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

The results suggest that monitoring and managing metabolic syndrome could help reduce cancer risk, the researchers concluded. 

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, said in a press release accompanying the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk, he noted. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he said in a statement.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer, according to a new study of more than 44,000 individuals.

The conditions that comprise metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2019 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.
 

What Does New Study Add to Other Research on Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk?

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years. The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

 What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

The results suggest that monitoring and managing metabolic syndrome could help reduce cancer risk, the researchers concluded. 

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, said in a press release accompanying the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk, he noted. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he said in a statement.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.