User login
Ezetimibe-statin combo lowers liver fat in open-label trial
Ezetimibe given in combination with rosuvastatin has a beneficial effect on liver fat in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according results of a randomized, active-controlled trial.
The findings, which come from the investigator-initiated ESSENTIAL trial, are likely to add to the debate over whether or not the lipid-lowering combination could be of benefit beyond its effects in the blood.
“We used magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], which is highly reliable method of assessing hepatic steatosis,” Youngjoon Kim, PhD, one of the study investigators, said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Barcelona.
“It enables accurate, repeatable and reproducible quantitative assessment of liver fat over the entire liver,” observed Dr. Kim, who works at Severance Hospital, part of Yonsei University in Seoul.
He reported that there was a significant 5.8% decrease in liver fat following 24 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin comparing baseline with end of treatment MRI-PDFF values; a drop that was significant (18.2% vs. 12.3%, P < .001).
Rosuvastatin monotherapy also reduced liver fat from 15.0% at baseline to 12.4% after 24 weeks; this drop of 2.6% was also significant (P = .003).
This gave an absolute mean difference between the two study arms of 3.2% (P = .02).
Rationale for the ESSENTIAL study
Dr. Kim observed during his presentation that NAFLD is burgeoning problem around the world. Ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin was a combination treatment already used widely in clinical practice, and there had been some suggestion that ezetimibe might have an effect on liver fat.
“Although the effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis is still controversial, ezetimibe has been reported to reduce visceral fat and improve insulin resistance in several studies” Dr. Kim said.
“Recently, our group reported that the use of ezetimibe affects autophagy of hepatocytes and the NLRP3 [NOD-like receptors containing pyrin domain 3] inflammasome,” he said.
Moreover, he added, “ezetimibe improved NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] in an animal model. However, the effects of ezetimibe have not been clearly shown in a human study.”
Dr. Kim also acknowledged a prior randomized control trial that had looked at the role of ezetimibe in 50 patients with NASH, but had not shown a benefit for the drug over placebo in terms of liver fat reduction.
Addressing the Hawthorne effect
“The size of the effect by that might actually be more modest due to the Hawthorne effect,” said session chair Onno Holleboom, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands.
“What we observe in the large clinical trials is an enormous Hawthorne effect – participating in a NAFLD trial makes people live healthier because they have health checks,” he said.
“That’s a major problem for showing efficacy for the intervention arm,” he added, but of course the open design meant that the trial only had intervention arms; “there was no placebo arm.”
A randomized, active-controlled, clinician-initiated trial
The main objective of the ESSENTIAL trial was therefore to take another look at the potential effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis and doing so in the setting of statin therapy.
In all, 70 patients with NAFLD that had been confirmed via ultrasound were recruited into the prospective, single center, phase 4 trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to received either ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg daily or rosuvastatin 5 mg for up to 24 weeks.
Change in liver fat was measured via MRI-PDFF, taking the average values in each of nine liver segments. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) was also used to measure liver fibrosis, although results did not show any differences either from baseline to end of treatment values in either group or when the two treatment groups were compared.
Dr. Kim reported that both treatment with the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin combination and rosuvastatin monotherapy reduced parameters that might be associated with a negative outcome in NAFLD, such as body mass index and waist circumference, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol. There was also a reduction in C-reactive protein levels in the blood, and interleulin-18. There was no change in liver enzymes.
Several subgroup analyses were performed indicating that “individuals with higher BMI, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and severe liver fibrosis were likely to be good responders to ezetimibe treatment,” Dr. Kim said.
“These data indicate that ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin is a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat patients with NAFLD and dyslipidemia,” he concluded.
The results of the ESSENTIAL study have been published in BMC Medicine.
The study was funded by the Yuhan Corporation. Dr. Kim had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Holleboom was not involved in the study and had no conflicts of interest.
Ezetimibe given in combination with rosuvastatin has a beneficial effect on liver fat in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according results of a randomized, active-controlled trial.
The findings, which come from the investigator-initiated ESSENTIAL trial, are likely to add to the debate over whether or not the lipid-lowering combination could be of benefit beyond its effects in the blood.
“We used magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], which is highly reliable method of assessing hepatic steatosis,” Youngjoon Kim, PhD, one of the study investigators, said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Barcelona.
“It enables accurate, repeatable and reproducible quantitative assessment of liver fat over the entire liver,” observed Dr. Kim, who works at Severance Hospital, part of Yonsei University in Seoul.
He reported that there was a significant 5.8% decrease in liver fat following 24 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin comparing baseline with end of treatment MRI-PDFF values; a drop that was significant (18.2% vs. 12.3%, P < .001).
Rosuvastatin monotherapy also reduced liver fat from 15.0% at baseline to 12.4% after 24 weeks; this drop of 2.6% was also significant (P = .003).
This gave an absolute mean difference between the two study arms of 3.2% (P = .02).
Rationale for the ESSENTIAL study
Dr. Kim observed during his presentation that NAFLD is burgeoning problem around the world. Ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin was a combination treatment already used widely in clinical practice, and there had been some suggestion that ezetimibe might have an effect on liver fat.
“Although the effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis is still controversial, ezetimibe has been reported to reduce visceral fat and improve insulin resistance in several studies” Dr. Kim said.
“Recently, our group reported that the use of ezetimibe affects autophagy of hepatocytes and the NLRP3 [NOD-like receptors containing pyrin domain 3] inflammasome,” he said.
Moreover, he added, “ezetimibe improved NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] in an animal model. However, the effects of ezetimibe have not been clearly shown in a human study.”
Dr. Kim also acknowledged a prior randomized control trial that had looked at the role of ezetimibe in 50 patients with NASH, but had not shown a benefit for the drug over placebo in terms of liver fat reduction.
Addressing the Hawthorne effect
“The size of the effect by that might actually be more modest due to the Hawthorne effect,” said session chair Onno Holleboom, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands.
“What we observe in the large clinical trials is an enormous Hawthorne effect – participating in a NAFLD trial makes people live healthier because they have health checks,” he said.
“That’s a major problem for showing efficacy for the intervention arm,” he added, but of course the open design meant that the trial only had intervention arms; “there was no placebo arm.”
A randomized, active-controlled, clinician-initiated trial
The main objective of the ESSENTIAL trial was therefore to take another look at the potential effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis and doing so in the setting of statin therapy.
In all, 70 patients with NAFLD that had been confirmed via ultrasound were recruited into the prospective, single center, phase 4 trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to received either ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg daily or rosuvastatin 5 mg for up to 24 weeks.
Change in liver fat was measured via MRI-PDFF, taking the average values in each of nine liver segments. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) was also used to measure liver fibrosis, although results did not show any differences either from baseline to end of treatment values in either group or when the two treatment groups were compared.
Dr. Kim reported that both treatment with the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin combination and rosuvastatin monotherapy reduced parameters that might be associated with a negative outcome in NAFLD, such as body mass index and waist circumference, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol. There was also a reduction in C-reactive protein levels in the blood, and interleulin-18. There was no change in liver enzymes.
Several subgroup analyses were performed indicating that “individuals with higher BMI, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and severe liver fibrosis were likely to be good responders to ezetimibe treatment,” Dr. Kim said.
“These data indicate that ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin is a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat patients with NAFLD and dyslipidemia,” he concluded.
The results of the ESSENTIAL study have been published in BMC Medicine.
The study was funded by the Yuhan Corporation. Dr. Kim had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Holleboom was not involved in the study and had no conflicts of interest.
Ezetimibe given in combination with rosuvastatin has a beneficial effect on liver fat in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according results of a randomized, active-controlled trial.
The findings, which come from the investigator-initiated ESSENTIAL trial, are likely to add to the debate over whether or not the lipid-lowering combination could be of benefit beyond its effects in the blood.
“We used magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], which is highly reliable method of assessing hepatic steatosis,” Youngjoon Kim, PhD, one of the study investigators, said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Barcelona.
“It enables accurate, repeatable and reproducible quantitative assessment of liver fat over the entire liver,” observed Dr. Kim, who works at Severance Hospital, part of Yonsei University in Seoul.
He reported that there was a significant 5.8% decrease in liver fat following 24 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin comparing baseline with end of treatment MRI-PDFF values; a drop that was significant (18.2% vs. 12.3%, P < .001).
Rosuvastatin monotherapy also reduced liver fat from 15.0% at baseline to 12.4% after 24 weeks; this drop of 2.6% was also significant (P = .003).
This gave an absolute mean difference between the two study arms of 3.2% (P = .02).
Rationale for the ESSENTIAL study
Dr. Kim observed during his presentation that NAFLD is burgeoning problem around the world. Ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin was a combination treatment already used widely in clinical practice, and there had been some suggestion that ezetimibe might have an effect on liver fat.
“Although the effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis is still controversial, ezetimibe has been reported to reduce visceral fat and improve insulin resistance in several studies” Dr. Kim said.
“Recently, our group reported that the use of ezetimibe affects autophagy of hepatocytes and the NLRP3 [NOD-like receptors containing pyrin domain 3] inflammasome,” he said.
Moreover, he added, “ezetimibe improved NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] in an animal model. However, the effects of ezetimibe have not been clearly shown in a human study.”
Dr. Kim also acknowledged a prior randomized control trial that had looked at the role of ezetimibe in 50 patients with NASH, but had not shown a benefit for the drug over placebo in terms of liver fat reduction.
Addressing the Hawthorne effect
“The size of the effect by that might actually be more modest due to the Hawthorne effect,” said session chair Onno Holleboom, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands.
“What we observe in the large clinical trials is an enormous Hawthorne effect – participating in a NAFLD trial makes people live healthier because they have health checks,” he said.
“That’s a major problem for showing efficacy for the intervention arm,” he added, but of course the open design meant that the trial only had intervention arms; “there was no placebo arm.”
A randomized, active-controlled, clinician-initiated trial
The main objective of the ESSENTIAL trial was therefore to take another look at the potential effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis and doing so in the setting of statin therapy.
In all, 70 patients with NAFLD that had been confirmed via ultrasound were recruited into the prospective, single center, phase 4 trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to received either ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg daily or rosuvastatin 5 mg for up to 24 weeks.
Change in liver fat was measured via MRI-PDFF, taking the average values in each of nine liver segments. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) was also used to measure liver fibrosis, although results did not show any differences either from baseline to end of treatment values in either group or when the two treatment groups were compared.
Dr. Kim reported that both treatment with the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin combination and rosuvastatin monotherapy reduced parameters that might be associated with a negative outcome in NAFLD, such as body mass index and waist circumference, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol. There was also a reduction in C-reactive protein levels in the blood, and interleulin-18. There was no change in liver enzymes.
Several subgroup analyses were performed indicating that “individuals with higher BMI, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and severe liver fibrosis were likely to be good responders to ezetimibe treatment,” Dr. Kim said.
“These data indicate that ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin is a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat patients with NAFLD and dyslipidemia,” he concluded.
The results of the ESSENTIAL study have been published in BMC Medicine.
The study was funded by the Yuhan Corporation. Dr. Kim had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Holleboom was not involved in the study and had no conflicts of interest.
FROM EASD 2022
Meet our newest genetically engineered frenemy, herpes
Herpes to the rescue
Let’s face it: When people hear the word “herpes,” their first thoughts are not positive. But what if herpes could be a hero?
Scientists have found a way to make a strain of herpes that kills cancer because, hey, it’s 2022, and anything is possible. Trials have been going well and this seems like a safe and effective way to fight cancer.
Viruses may be one of our oldest enemies, but it’s also been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So why not make herpes the enemy of cancer, thereby turning it into our friend? The genetically modified herpes virus is injected directly into tumors, where it destroys cancer cells from within. But wait, there’s more! The patient’s immune system also senses the virus and springs into action against it and the cancer in which it is residing.
During the phase 1 trial, three of the nine patients saw tumor reduction and the therapy proved safe as well. Future trials will be able to more specifically target various cancer types and make the treatment better. For once, we are rooting for you, herpes.
A breath of not-so-fresh air
There’s nothing quite like that first real warm day of spring. You can finally open the windows and clear out the old stuffy air that’s been hanging around all winter long. It’s a ritual that’s now backed up with some science in the form of a new study. Turns out that there’s actually a fair amount of smog in the average home. That’s right, smog’s not just for the big city anymore.
As part of the HOMEChem project, a whole host of scientists gathered together under one roof in a typical suburban house and immediately started doing chores. Cooking, cleaning, the works. No, it wasn’t because they had trashed the place the night before. They had set up instrumentation all around the house to measure the chemical makeup of the air inside. A scientist’s idea of a wild party.
The results are perhaps not all that surprising, but interesting nonetheless. Your homemade smog certainly won’t kill you, but there’s both an increased amount and higher concentration of airborne toxins in indoor air, compared with outdoors. Benzene and formaldehyde were common, as were acrolein (a pulmonary toxicant emitted by lumber and burning fats) and isocyanic acid (which can react with proteins in the human body). The researchers noted that most of these chemicals can be removed with proper ventilation.
Although cleaning is certainly responsible for a fair share of the chemicals, cooking generally produced more toxic compounds, similar to what’s found in wildfire smoke. One of the researchers said this makes sense, since a wildfire can be considered an “extreme form of cooking.” Scientists may not know how to party, but their idea of a barbecue sounds … interesting. We’re looking forward to an upcoming study out of California: Can a 1-million acre wildfire adequately cook a ribeye steak?
We’re dying to try composting ... with humans, that is
We here at LOTME are not really fans of politicians, except as objects of ridicule. That is kind of fun. Whether we’re watching Fox News, listening to NPR, or reading Vladimir Putin’s fashion blog, one thing remains clear: If you want actual information, don’t ask a politician.
There are, of course, always exceptions, and we just found one: California state representative Cristina Garcia. Rep. Garcia sponsored a bill just signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that legalizes the practice of human composting, the reduction of remains by “placing bodies in individual vessels and fostering gentle transformation into a nutrient-dense soil.”
Since we’ve written about this sort of thing before – Washington was the first state to legalize the process back in 2019 – we’re more interested now in what Rep. Garcia told NBC News while describing her motivation: “I’ve always wanted to be a tree. The idea of having my family sitting under my shade one day – that brings a lot of joy.” How great is that? Tree-hugging is just not enough. Be the tree.
California is the fifth state to provide its residents with the human composting option, the other three being Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont. The process “typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days,” Smithsonian Magazine explained.
We just happen to have some good news for Rep. Garcia about that wanting-to-be-a-tree business. She’s already pretty close. For more on that, we go to our correspondent from beyond the grave, Carl Sagan, who shares a thought about trees. And no, we couldn’t just write out his quote here. You have to hear it in Dr. Sagan’s own voice.
That’ll be one pandemic with extra distress. Hold the goals
When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit it put a lot of stuff on hold for everyone. Couldn’t eat inside at your favorite restaurant, attend that long-awaited concert, or travel out of the country. Those were all pretty bad, but it was the disruption of pursuing long-term goals that seemed to have the most effect on people’s mental health.
Investigators from the University of Waterloo (Ont.) looked at how putting such goals on hold affected people’s mental well-being. The study’s 226 participants were asked about their “COVID-frozen” goals and the degree to which they were able to actively pursue each goal and how committed they were to achieving it.
What they found was that the participants’ COVID-frozen goals were associated with feelings of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, and lowered life satisfaction. It was only when participants were able to disengage from goal rumination that well-being was impacted positively.
“Goal rumination is compulsive and can aggravate worries and frustrations while also taking away mental resources from other goals,” Candice Hubley, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychology, said in a written statement. So in short, you’re only stressing yourself out more about something that is far off in the distance when you could be focusing more on short-term, tangible goals instead.
Now, no one is saying to give up on your goals. Just take them one at a time. You’ll have better life satisfaction and your COVID-frozen goals will thaw out before you know it.
Herpes to the rescue
Let’s face it: When people hear the word “herpes,” their first thoughts are not positive. But what if herpes could be a hero?
Scientists have found a way to make a strain of herpes that kills cancer because, hey, it’s 2022, and anything is possible. Trials have been going well and this seems like a safe and effective way to fight cancer.
Viruses may be one of our oldest enemies, but it’s also been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So why not make herpes the enemy of cancer, thereby turning it into our friend? The genetically modified herpes virus is injected directly into tumors, where it destroys cancer cells from within. But wait, there’s more! The patient’s immune system also senses the virus and springs into action against it and the cancer in which it is residing.
During the phase 1 trial, three of the nine patients saw tumor reduction and the therapy proved safe as well. Future trials will be able to more specifically target various cancer types and make the treatment better. For once, we are rooting for you, herpes.
A breath of not-so-fresh air
There’s nothing quite like that first real warm day of spring. You can finally open the windows and clear out the old stuffy air that’s been hanging around all winter long. It’s a ritual that’s now backed up with some science in the form of a new study. Turns out that there’s actually a fair amount of smog in the average home. That’s right, smog’s not just for the big city anymore.
As part of the HOMEChem project, a whole host of scientists gathered together under one roof in a typical suburban house and immediately started doing chores. Cooking, cleaning, the works. No, it wasn’t because they had trashed the place the night before. They had set up instrumentation all around the house to measure the chemical makeup of the air inside. A scientist’s idea of a wild party.
The results are perhaps not all that surprising, but interesting nonetheless. Your homemade smog certainly won’t kill you, but there’s both an increased amount and higher concentration of airborne toxins in indoor air, compared with outdoors. Benzene and formaldehyde were common, as were acrolein (a pulmonary toxicant emitted by lumber and burning fats) and isocyanic acid (which can react with proteins in the human body). The researchers noted that most of these chemicals can be removed with proper ventilation.
Although cleaning is certainly responsible for a fair share of the chemicals, cooking generally produced more toxic compounds, similar to what’s found in wildfire smoke. One of the researchers said this makes sense, since a wildfire can be considered an “extreme form of cooking.” Scientists may not know how to party, but their idea of a barbecue sounds … interesting. We’re looking forward to an upcoming study out of California: Can a 1-million acre wildfire adequately cook a ribeye steak?
We’re dying to try composting ... with humans, that is
We here at LOTME are not really fans of politicians, except as objects of ridicule. That is kind of fun. Whether we’re watching Fox News, listening to NPR, or reading Vladimir Putin’s fashion blog, one thing remains clear: If you want actual information, don’t ask a politician.
There are, of course, always exceptions, and we just found one: California state representative Cristina Garcia. Rep. Garcia sponsored a bill just signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that legalizes the practice of human composting, the reduction of remains by “placing bodies in individual vessels and fostering gentle transformation into a nutrient-dense soil.”
Since we’ve written about this sort of thing before – Washington was the first state to legalize the process back in 2019 – we’re more interested now in what Rep. Garcia told NBC News while describing her motivation: “I’ve always wanted to be a tree. The idea of having my family sitting under my shade one day – that brings a lot of joy.” How great is that? Tree-hugging is just not enough. Be the tree.
California is the fifth state to provide its residents with the human composting option, the other three being Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont. The process “typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days,” Smithsonian Magazine explained.
We just happen to have some good news for Rep. Garcia about that wanting-to-be-a-tree business. She’s already pretty close. For more on that, we go to our correspondent from beyond the grave, Carl Sagan, who shares a thought about trees. And no, we couldn’t just write out his quote here. You have to hear it in Dr. Sagan’s own voice.
That’ll be one pandemic with extra distress. Hold the goals
When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit it put a lot of stuff on hold for everyone. Couldn’t eat inside at your favorite restaurant, attend that long-awaited concert, or travel out of the country. Those were all pretty bad, but it was the disruption of pursuing long-term goals that seemed to have the most effect on people’s mental health.
Investigators from the University of Waterloo (Ont.) looked at how putting such goals on hold affected people’s mental well-being. The study’s 226 participants were asked about their “COVID-frozen” goals and the degree to which they were able to actively pursue each goal and how committed they were to achieving it.
What they found was that the participants’ COVID-frozen goals were associated with feelings of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, and lowered life satisfaction. It was only when participants were able to disengage from goal rumination that well-being was impacted positively.
“Goal rumination is compulsive and can aggravate worries and frustrations while also taking away mental resources from other goals,” Candice Hubley, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychology, said in a written statement. So in short, you’re only stressing yourself out more about something that is far off in the distance when you could be focusing more on short-term, tangible goals instead.
Now, no one is saying to give up on your goals. Just take them one at a time. You’ll have better life satisfaction and your COVID-frozen goals will thaw out before you know it.
Herpes to the rescue
Let’s face it: When people hear the word “herpes,” their first thoughts are not positive. But what if herpes could be a hero?
Scientists have found a way to make a strain of herpes that kills cancer because, hey, it’s 2022, and anything is possible. Trials have been going well and this seems like a safe and effective way to fight cancer.
Viruses may be one of our oldest enemies, but it’s also been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So why not make herpes the enemy of cancer, thereby turning it into our friend? The genetically modified herpes virus is injected directly into tumors, where it destroys cancer cells from within. But wait, there’s more! The patient’s immune system also senses the virus and springs into action against it and the cancer in which it is residing.
During the phase 1 trial, three of the nine patients saw tumor reduction and the therapy proved safe as well. Future trials will be able to more specifically target various cancer types and make the treatment better. For once, we are rooting for you, herpes.
A breath of not-so-fresh air
There’s nothing quite like that first real warm day of spring. You can finally open the windows and clear out the old stuffy air that’s been hanging around all winter long. It’s a ritual that’s now backed up with some science in the form of a new study. Turns out that there’s actually a fair amount of smog in the average home. That’s right, smog’s not just for the big city anymore.
As part of the HOMEChem project, a whole host of scientists gathered together under one roof in a typical suburban house and immediately started doing chores. Cooking, cleaning, the works. No, it wasn’t because they had trashed the place the night before. They had set up instrumentation all around the house to measure the chemical makeup of the air inside. A scientist’s idea of a wild party.
The results are perhaps not all that surprising, but interesting nonetheless. Your homemade smog certainly won’t kill you, but there’s both an increased amount and higher concentration of airborne toxins in indoor air, compared with outdoors. Benzene and formaldehyde were common, as were acrolein (a pulmonary toxicant emitted by lumber and burning fats) and isocyanic acid (which can react with proteins in the human body). The researchers noted that most of these chemicals can be removed with proper ventilation.
Although cleaning is certainly responsible for a fair share of the chemicals, cooking generally produced more toxic compounds, similar to what’s found in wildfire smoke. One of the researchers said this makes sense, since a wildfire can be considered an “extreme form of cooking.” Scientists may not know how to party, but their idea of a barbecue sounds … interesting. We’re looking forward to an upcoming study out of California: Can a 1-million acre wildfire adequately cook a ribeye steak?
We’re dying to try composting ... with humans, that is
We here at LOTME are not really fans of politicians, except as objects of ridicule. That is kind of fun. Whether we’re watching Fox News, listening to NPR, or reading Vladimir Putin’s fashion blog, one thing remains clear: If you want actual information, don’t ask a politician.
There are, of course, always exceptions, and we just found one: California state representative Cristina Garcia. Rep. Garcia sponsored a bill just signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that legalizes the practice of human composting, the reduction of remains by “placing bodies in individual vessels and fostering gentle transformation into a nutrient-dense soil.”
Since we’ve written about this sort of thing before – Washington was the first state to legalize the process back in 2019 – we’re more interested now in what Rep. Garcia told NBC News while describing her motivation: “I’ve always wanted to be a tree. The idea of having my family sitting under my shade one day – that brings a lot of joy.” How great is that? Tree-hugging is just not enough. Be the tree.
California is the fifth state to provide its residents with the human composting option, the other three being Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont. The process “typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days,” Smithsonian Magazine explained.
We just happen to have some good news for Rep. Garcia about that wanting-to-be-a-tree business. She’s already pretty close. For more on that, we go to our correspondent from beyond the grave, Carl Sagan, who shares a thought about trees. And no, we couldn’t just write out his quote here. You have to hear it in Dr. Sagan’s own voice.
That’ll be one pandemic with extra distress. Hold the goals
When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit it put a lot of stuff on hold for everyone. Couldn’t eat inside at your favorite restaurant, attend that long-awaited concert, or travel out of the country. Those were all pretty bad, but it was the disruption of pursuing long-term goals that seemed to have the most effect on people’s mental health.
Investigators from the University of Waterloo (Ont.) looked at how putting such goals on hold affected people’s mental well-being. The study’s 226 participants were asked about their “COVID-frozen” goals and the degree to which they were able to actively pursue each goal and how committed they were to achieving it.
What they found was that the participants’ COVID-frozen goals were associated with feelings of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, and lowered life satisfaction. It was only when participants were able to disengage from goal rumination that well-being was impacted positively.
“Goal rumination is compulsive and can aggravate worries and frustrations while also taking away mental resources from other goals,” Candice Hubley, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychology, said in a written statement. So in short, you’re only stressing yourself out more about something that is far off in the distance when you could be focusing more on short-term, tangible goals instead.
Now, no one is saying to give up on your goals. Just take them one at a time. You’ll have better life satisfaction and your COVID-frozen goals will thaw out before you know it.
Despite benefits, extended-interval pembro uptake remains low
In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.
The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.
Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.
However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.
Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.
Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.
Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.
And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.
The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.
Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.
“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.
“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.
In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.
It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.
If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.
“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.
To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”
Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.
Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”
Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.
The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.
The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.
Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.
However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.
Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.
Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.
Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.
And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.
The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.
Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.
“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.
“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.
In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.
It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.
If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.
“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.
To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”
Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.
Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”
Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.
The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.
The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.
Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.
However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.
Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.
Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.
Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.
And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.
The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.
Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.
“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.
“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.
In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.
It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.
If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.
“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.
To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”
Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.
Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”
Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.
The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Cre8 EVO stent loses sweet spot in diabetes at 2 years: SUGAR
BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.
The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.
At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).
Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).
Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”
Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.
Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.
During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”
Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.
Roxana Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who previously described the 1-year results as “almost too good to be true,” commented to this news organization, “We just saw in this trial, no benefit whatsoever at 2 years in terms of target lesion failure. So it’s very important for us to evaluate this going forward.”
She continued, “We’ve always been talking about these biodegradable polymers and then going back to the bare metal stent – oh that’s great because polymers aren’t so good – but now we’re seeing durable polymers may be okay, especially with the current technology.”
Asked whether Cre8 EVO, which is CE mark certified in Europe, remains an option in light of the new results, Dr. Mehran said, “I don’t think it kills it. It’s not worse; it’s another stent that’s available.”
Nevertheless, “what we’re looking for is some efficacious benefit for diabetic patients. We don’t have one yet,” observed Dr. Mehran, who is leading the ABILITY Diabetes Global trial, which just finished enrolling 3,000 patients with diabetes and is testing PCI with the Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent system vs. the Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The study is estimated to be complete in August 2024.
The study was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Salinas reported consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biomenco, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.
The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.
At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).
Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).
Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”
Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.
Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.
During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”
Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.
Roxana Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who previously described the 1-year results as “almost too good to be true,” commented to this news organization, “We just saw in this trial, no benefit whatsoever at 2 years in terms of target lesion failure. So it’s very important for us to evaluate this going forward.”
She continued, “We’ve always been talking about these biodegradable polymers and then going back to the bare metal stent – oh that’s great because polymers aren’t so good – but now we’re seeing durable polymers may be okay, especially with the current technology.”
Asked whether Cre8 EVO, which is CE mark certified in Europe, remains an option in light of the new results, Dr. Mehran said, “I don’t think it kills it. It’s not worse; it’s another stent that’s available.”
Nevertheless, “what we’re looking for is some efficacious benefit for diabetic patients. We don’t have one yet,” observed Dr. Mehran, who is leading the ABILITY Diabetes Global trial, which just finished enrolling 3,000 patients with diabetes and is testing PCI with the Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent system vs. the Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The study is estimated to be complete in August 2024.
The study was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Salinas reported consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biomenco, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.
The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.
At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).
Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).
Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”
Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.
Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.
During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”
Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.
Roxana Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who previously described the 1-year results as “almost too good to be true,” commented to this news organization, “We just saw in this trial, no benefit whatsoever at 2 years in terms of target lesion failure. So it’s very important for us to evaluate this going forward.”
She continued, “We’ve always been talking about these biodegradable polymers and then going back to the bare metal stent – oh that’s great because polymers aren’t so good – but now we’re seeing durable polymers may be okay, especially with the current technology.”
Asked whether Cre8 EVO, which is CE mark certified in Europe, remains an option in light of the new results, Dr. Mehran said, “I don’t think it kills it. It’s not worse; it’s another stent that’s available.”
Nevertheless, “what we’re looking for is some efficacious benefit for diabetic patients. We don’t have one yet,” observed Dr. Mehran, who is leading the ABILITY Diabetes Global trial, which just finished enrolling 3,000 patients with diabetes and is testing PCI with the Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent system vs. the Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The study is estimated to be complete in August 2024.
The study was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Salinas reported consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biomenco, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT TCT 2022
Emphasis on weight loss in new type 2 diabetes guidance
STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.
Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.
The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.
During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”
“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment
In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”
“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.
“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”
According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”
“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
Individualization featured throughout
The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.
Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.
The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
Designed to be used and user-friendly
Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.
A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.
Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.
Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.
Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.
The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.
During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”
“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment
In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”
“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.
“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”
According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”
“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
Individualization featured throughout
The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.
Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.
The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
Designed to be used and user-friendly
Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.
A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.
Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.
Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.
Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.
The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.
During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”
“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment
In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”
“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.
“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”
According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”
“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
Individualization featured throughout
The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.
Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.
The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
Designed to be used and user-friendly
Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.
A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.
Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.
Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2022
Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis insurance coverage remains restrictive
Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.
Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.
Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.
The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.
All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.
Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.
“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.
The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.
“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.
The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.
Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.
Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.
The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.
All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.
Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.
“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.
The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.
“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.
The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.
Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.
Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.
The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.
All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.
Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.
“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.
The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.
“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.
The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSORIASIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS
Unsure on the best T2D drug choice? Let patients decide
STOCKHOLM – When a clinician is unsure which of several equally viable drug options is best for a specific patient with type 2 diabetes, a rational approach is to run a serial trial with each one and then let each patient decide which agent works best for them.
That concept underwent successful testing in a recent trial with 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and already on treatment with metformin or metformin plus a sulfonylurea but needed further glycemic control. After cycling through 4-month trials (when tolerated) of canagliflozin (Invokana), pioglitazone (Actos), and sitagliptin (Januvia), 24% identified pioglitazone as the one that made them feel best, 33% favored sitagliptin, 37% said canagliflozin was tops, and 6% had no preference, Beverley Shields, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
After making these selections based on just their qualitative self-appraisals, researchers told patients about their hemoglobin A1c status on each of the three agents. It barely budged their choices, which became 25% calling pioglitazone best, 35% naming sitagliptin their preference, 38% opting for canagliflozin, with 2% having no preference.
Further analysis showed that the drug patients preferred was also the one that produced their lowest A1c level when compared with their 8 months on each of the two other agents tested, showing a link between lower A1c levels and improved well-being. The same relationship existed for the drug that caused the fewest adverse events for each patient.
Patients prefer feeling better
“Patients tended to prefer the drug that they ‘felt better’ on, with the lowest A1c level and the lowest number of side effects,” explained Dr. Shields, a medical statistician at the University of Exeter (England). Changes in weight appeared less important to patients for establishing a preference.
“This is for when there is equipoise” among drug options, Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “When you are unsure what to prescribe and there is no clear indication for one drug over another, try 4 months of one and 4 months of the other, then let the patient decide.
“Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug,” added Dr. Hattersley, who is also professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter.
“This has implications across medicine,” he added. “Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects.”
“I’m a bit worried by this approach, but it is something new” and worth considering, commented Drazenka P. Barlovic, MD, an endocrinologist at the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who chaired the session where Dr. Shields gave her report. “We should also have the courage to challenge metformin, as there is no longer an obligation to make it the first drug,” she said in an interview.
The study ran as a secondary analysis of the TriMaster study, which had the primary objective of identifying patient characteristics that could predict which of the three drug options tested worked best for certain patient subgroups. That analysis, presented at the 2021 EASD annual meeting, found that factors such as body mass index and kidney function significantly linked with the clinical responses patients had to each of the three tested agents.
The new analysis focused on 457 of the TriMaster participants who had provided preference information after they had tried all three agents. By design, none of the participants enrolled in the study had a contraindication for any of the tested drugs.
Patients quickly identify adverse effects
“We picked 4 months because it not too long, but long enough to see adverse effects, and to measure on-treatment A1c. Patients quickly identify their adverse events,” Dr. Shields said in an interview.
“This could come into practice now; there is no cost involved. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” Dr. Hattersley suggested. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.” He also stressed telling patients to return quicker than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug.
The findings have already changed Dr. Hattersley’s practice, and he believes it will catch on as he introduces it to local primary care physicians.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Shields, Dr. Hattersley, and Dr. Barlovic had no disclosures.
STOCKHOLM – When a clinician is unsure which of several equally viable drug options is best for a specific patient with type 2 diabetes, a rational approach is to run a serial trial with each one and then let each patient decide which agent works best for them.
That concept underwent successful testing in a recent trial with 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and already on treatment with metformin or metformin plus a sulfonylurea but needed further glycemic control. After cycling through 4-month trials (when tolerated) of canagliflozin (Invokana), pioglitazone (Actos), and sitagliptin (Januvia), 24% identified pioglitazone as the one that made them feel best, 33% favored sitagliptin, 37% said canagliflozin was tops, and 6% had no preference, Beverley Shields, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
After making these selections based on just their qualitative self-appraisals, researchers told patients about their hemoglobin A1c status on each of the three agents. It barely budged their choices, which became 25% calling pioglitazone best, 35% naming sitagliptin their preference, 38% opting for canagliflozin, with 2% having no preference.
Further analysis showed that the drug patients preferred was also the one that produced their lowest A1c level when compared with their 8 months on each of the two other agents tested, showing a link between lower A1c levels and improved well-being. The same relationship existed for the drug that caused the fewest adverse events for each patient.
Patients prefer feeling better
“Patients tended to prefer the drug that they ‘felt better’ on, with the lowest A1c level and the lowest number of side effects,” explained Dr. Shields, a medical statistician at the University of Exeter (England). Changes in weight appeared less important to patients for establishing a preference.
“This is for when there is equipoise” among drug options, Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “When you are unsure what to prescribe and there is no clear indication for one drug over another, try 4 months of one and 4 months of the other, then let the patient decide.
“Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug,” added Dr. Hattersley, who is also professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter.
“This has implications across medicine,” he added. “Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects.”
“I’m a bit worried by this approach, but it is something new” and worth considering, commented Drazenka P. Barlovic, MD, an endocrinologist at the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who chaired the session where Dr. Shields gave her report. “We should also have the courage to challenge metformin, as there is no longer an obligation to make it the first drug,” she said in an interview.
The study ran as a secondary analysis of the TriMaster study, which had the primary objective of identifying patient characteristics that could predict which of the three drug options tested worked best for certain patient subgroups. That analysis, presented at the 2021 EASD annual meeting, found that factors such as body mass index and kidney function significantly linked with the clinical responses patients had to each of the three tested agents.
The new analysis focused on 457 of the TriMaster participants who had provided preference information after they had tried all three agents. By design, none of the participants enrolled in the study had a contraindication for any of the tested drugs.
Patients quickly identify adverse effects
“We picked 4 months because it not too long, but long enough to see adverse effects, and to measure on-treatment A1c. Patients quickly identify their adverse events,” Dr. Shields said in an interview.
“This could come into practice now; there is no cost involved. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” Dr. Hattersley suggested. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.” He also stressed telling patients to return quicker than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug.
The findings have already changed Dr. Hattersley’s practice, and he believes it will catch on as he introduces it to local primary care physicians.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Shields, Dr. Hattersley, and Dr. Barlovic had no disclosures.
STOCKHOLM – When a clinician is unsure which of several equally viable drug options is best for a specific patient with type 2 diabetes, a rational approach is to run a serial trial with each one and then let each patient decide which agent works best for them.
That concept underwent successful testing in a recent trial with 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and already on treatment with metformin or metformin plus a sulfonylurea but needed further glycemic control. After cycling through 4-month trials (when tolerated) of canagliflozin (Invokana), pioglitazone (Actos), and sitagliptin (Januvia), 24% identified pioglitazone as the one that made them feel best, 33% favored sitagliptin, 37% said canagliflozin was tops, and 6% had no preference, Beverley Shields, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
After making these selections based on just their qualitative self-appraisals, researchers told patients about their hemoglobin A1c status on each of the three agents. It barely budged their choices, which became 25% calling pioglitazone best, 35% naming sitagliptin their preference, 38% opting for canagliflozin, with 2% having no preference.
Further analysis showed that the drug patients preferred was also the one that produced their lowest A1c level when compared with their 8 months on each of the two other agents tested, showing a link between lower A1c levels and improved well-being. The same relationship existed for the drug that caused the fewest adverse events for each patient.
Patients prefer feeling better
“Patients tended to prefer the drug that they ‘felt better’ on, with the lowest A1c level and the lowest number of side effects,” explained Dr. Shields, a medical statistician at the University of Exeter (England). Changes in weight appeared less important to patients for establishing a preference.
“This is for when there is equipoise” among drug options, Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “When you are unsure what to prescribe and there is no clear indication for one drug over another, try 4 months of one and 4 months of the other, then let the patient decide.
“Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug,” added Dr. Hattersley, who is also professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter.
“This has implications across medicine,” he added. “Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects.”
“I’m a bit worried by this approach, but it is something new” and worth considering, commented Drazenka P. Barlovic, MD, an endocrinologist at the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who chaired the session where Dr. Shields gave her report. “We should also have the courage to challenge metformin, as there is no longer an obligation to make it the first drug,” she said in an interview.
The study ran as a secondary analysis of the TriMaster study, which had the primary objective of identifying patient characteristics that could predict which of the three drug options tested worked best for certain patient subgroups. That analysis, presented at the 2021 EASD annual meeting, found that factors such as body mass index and kidney function significantly linked with the clinical responses patients had to each of the three tested agents.
The new analysis focused on 457 of the TriMaster participants who had provided preference information after they had tried all three agents. By design, none of the participants enrolled in the study had a contraindication for any of the tested drugs.
Patients quickly identify adverse effects
“We picked 4 months because it not too long, but long enough to see adverse effects, and to measure on-treatment A1c. Patients quickly identify their adverse events,” Dr. Shields said in an interview.
“This could come into practice now; there is no cost involved. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” Dr. Hattersley suggested. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.” He also stressed telling patients to return quicker than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug.
The findings have already changed Dr. Hattersley’s practice, and he believes it will catch on as he introduces it to local primary care physicians.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Shields, Dr. Hattersley, and Dr. Barlovic had no disclosures.
AT EASD 2022
Early age at hysterectomy ups type 2 diabetes risk
Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.
A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).
This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).
“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
Findings challenged
“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.
“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.
“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.
“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”
Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
Assessing the risk of incident diabetes
Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.
“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.
Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.
“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.
To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.
For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.
In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.
The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.
The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).
And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
Risk increased with oophorectomy
“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).
“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.
“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
No increased risk for endometriosis
While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).
The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.
A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).
This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).
“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
Findings challenged
“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.
“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.
“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.
“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”
Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
Assessing the risk of incident diabetes
Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.
“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.
Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.
“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.
To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.
For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.
In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.
The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.
The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).
And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
Risk increased with oophorectomy
“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).
“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.
“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
No increased risk for endometriosis
While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).
The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.
A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).
This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).
“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
Findings challenged
“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.
“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.
“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.
“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”
Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
Assessing the risk of incident diabetes
Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.
“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.
Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.
“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.
To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.
For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.
In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.
The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.
The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).
And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
Risk increased with oophorectomy
“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).
“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.
“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
No increased risk for endometriosis
While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).
The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM EASD 2022
Shift in child hospice care is a lifeline for parents seeking a measure of comfort and hope
POMONA, CALIF. – When you first meet 17-month-old Aaron Martinez, it’s not obvious that something is catastrophically wrong.
What you see is a beautiful little boy with smooth, lustrous skin, an abundance of glossy brown hair, and a disarming smile. What you hear are coos and cries that don’t immediately signal anything is horribly awry.
But his parents, Adriana Pinedo and Hector Martinez, know the truth painfully well.
Although Ms. Pinedo’s doctors and midwife had described the pregnancy as “perfect” for all 9 months, Aaron was born with most of his brain cells dead, the result of two strokes and a massive bleed he sustained while in utero.
Doctors aren’t sure what caused the anomalies that left Aaron with virtually no cognitive function or physical mobility. His voluminous hair hides a head whose circumference is too small for his age. He has epilepsy that triggers multiple seizures each day, and his smile is not always what it seems. “It could be a smile; it could be a seizure,” Ms. Pinedo said.
Shortly after Aaron was born, doctors told Ms. Pinedo, 34, and Mr. Martinez, 35, there was no hope and they should “let nature take its course.” They would learn months later that the doctors had not expected the boy to live more than 5 days. It was on Day 5 that his parents put him in home hospice care, an arrangement that has continued into his second year of life.
The family gets weekly visits from hospice nurses, therapists, social workers, and a chaplain in the cramped one-bedroom apartment they rent from the people who live in the main house on the same lot on a quiet residential street in this Inland Empire city.
One of the main criteria for hospice care, established by Medicare largely for seniors but also applied to children, is a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live. Yet over the course of 17 months, Aaron’s medical team has repeatedly recertified his hospice eligibility.
Under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program are allowed, unlike adults, to be in hospice while continuing to receive curative or life-extending care. Commercial insurers are not required to cover this “concurrent care,” but many now do.
More than a decade since its inception, concurrent care is widely credited with improving the quality of life for many terminally ill children, easing stress on the family and, in some cases, sustaining hope for a cure. But the arrangement can contribute to a painful dilemma for parents like Ms. Pinedo and Mr. Martinez, who are torn between their fierce commitment to their son and the futility of knowing that his condition leaves him with no future worth hoping for.
“We could lose a life, but if he continues to live this way, we’ll lose three,” said Ms. Pinedo. “There’s no quality of life for him or for us.”
Aaron’s doctors now say he could conceivably live for years. His body hasn’t stopped growing since he was born. He’s in the 96th percentile for height for his age, and his weight is about average.
His parents have talked about “graduating” him from hospice. But he is never stable for long, and they welcome the visits from their hospice team. The seizures, sometimes 30 a day, are a persistent assault on his brain and, as he grows, the medications intended to control them must be changed or the doses recalibrated. He is at continual risk of gastrointestinal problems and potentially deadly fluid buildup in his lungs.
Ms. Pinedo, who works from home for a nonprofit public health organization, spends much of her time with Aaron, while Mr. Martinez works as a landscaper. She has chosen to live in the moment, she said, because otherwise her mind wanders to a future in which either “he could die – or he won’t, and I’ll end up changing the diapers of a 40-year-old man.” Either of those “are going to suck.”
While cancer is one of the major illnesses afflicting children in hospice, many others, like Aaron, have rare congenital defects, severe neurological impairments, or uncommon metabolic deficiencies.
“We have diseases that families tell us are 1 of 10 cases in the world,” said Glen Komatsu, MD, medical director of Torrance, Calif.–based TrinityKids Care, which provides home hospice services to Aaron and more than 70 other kids in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
In the years leading up to the ACA’s implementation, pediatric health advocates lobbied hard for the concurrent care provision. Without the possibility of life-extending care or hope for a cure, many parents refused to put their terminally ill kids in hospice, thinking it was tantamount to giving up on them. That meant the whole family missed out on the support hospice can provide, not just pain relief and comfort for the dying child, but emotional and spiritual care for parents and siblings under extreme duress.
TrinityKids Care, run by the large national Catholic health system Providence, doesn’t just send nurses, social workers, and chaplains into homes. For patients able to participate, and their siblings, it also offers art and science projects, exercise classes, movies, and music. During the pandemic, these activities have been conducted via Zoom, and volunteers deliver needed supplies to the children’s homes.
The ability to get treatments that prolong their lives is a major reason children in concurrent care are more likely than adults to outlive the 6-months-to-live diagnosis required for hospice.
“Concurrent care, by its very intention, very clearly is going to extend their lives, and by extending their lives they’re no longer going to be hospice-eligible if you use the 6-month life expectancy criteria,” said David Steinhorn, MD, a pediatric intensive care physician in Virginia, who has helped develop numerous children’s hospice programs across the United States.
Another factor is that kids, even sick ones, are simply more robust than many older people.
“Sick kids are often otherwise healthy, except for one organ,” said Debra Lotstein, MD, chief of the division of comfort and palliative care at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “They may have cancer in their body, but their hearts are good and their lungs are good, compared to a 90-year-old who at baseline is just not as resilient.”
All of Aaron Martinez’s vital organs, except for his brain, seem to be working. “There have been times when we’ve brought him in, and the nurse looks at the chart and looks at him, and she can’t believe it’s that child,” said Mr. Martinez.
When kids live past the 6-month life expectancy, they must be recertified to stay in hospice. In many cases, Dr. Steinhorn said, he is willing to recertify his pediatric patients indefinitely.
Even with doctors advocating for them, it’s not always easy for children to get into hospice care. Most hospices care primarily for adults and are reluctant to take kids.
“The hospice will say: ‘We don’t have the capacity to treat children. Our nurses aren’t trained. It’s different. We just can’t do it,’ ” said Lori Butterworth, cofounder of the Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition of California in Watsonville. “The other reason is not wanting to, because it’s existentially devastating and sad and hard.”
Finances also play a role. Home hospice care is paid at a per diem rate set by Medicare – slightly over $200 a day for the first 2 months, about $161 a day after that – and it is typically the same for kids and adults. Children, particularly those with rare conditions, often require more intensive and innovative care, so the per diem doesn’t stretch as far.
The concurrent care provision has made taking pediatric patients more viable for hospice organizations, Dr. Steinhorn and others said. Under the ACA, many of the expenses for certain medications and medical services can be shifted to the patient’s primary insurance, leaving hospices responsible for pain relief and comfort care.
Even so, the relatively small number of kids who die each year from protracted ailments hardly makes pediatric hospice an appealing line of business in an industry craving growth, especially one in which private equity investors are active and seeking a big payday.
In California, only 21 of 1,336 hospices reported having a specialized pediatric hospice program, and 59 said they served at least one patient under age 21, according to an analysis of 2020 state data by Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.
Hospice providers that do cater to children often face a more basic challenge: Even with the possibility of concurrent care, many parents still equate hospice with acceptance of death. That was the case initially for Matt and Reese Sonnen, Los Angeles residents whose daughter, Layla, was born with a seizure disorder that had no name: Her brain had simply failed to develop in the womb, and an MRI showed “fluid taking up space where the brain wasn’t,” her mother said.
When Layla’s team first mentioned hospice, “I was in the car on my phone, and I almost crashed the car,” Mrs. Sonnen recalled. “The first thought that came to mind was: ‘It is just the end,’ but we felt she was nowhere near it, because she was strong, she was mighty. She was my little girl. She was going to get through this.”
About 3 months later, as Layla’s nervous system deteriorated, causing her to writhe in pain, her parents agreed to enroll her in hospice with TrinityKids Care. She died weeks later, not long after her second birthday. She was in her mother’s arms, with Mr. Sonnen close by.
“All of a sudden, Layla breathed out a big rush of air. The nurse looked at me and said: ‘That was her last breath.’ I was literally breathing in her last breath,” Mrs. Sonnen recounted. “I never wanted to breathe again, because now I felt I had her in my lungs. Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me exhale.”
Layla’s parents have no regrets about their decision to put her in hospice. “It was the absolute right decision, and in hindsight we should have done it sooner,” Mr. Sonnen said. “She was suffering, and we had blinders on.”
Ms. Pinedo said she is “infinitely grateful” for hospice, despite the heartache of Aaron’s condition. Sometimes the social worker will stop by, she said, just to say hello and drop off a latte, a small gesture that can feel very uplifting. “They’ve been our lifeline,” she said.
Ms. Pinedo talks about a friend of hers with a healthy baby, also named Aaron, who is pregnant with her second child. “All the stuff that was on our list, they’re living. And I love them dearly. But it’s almost hard to look, because it’s like looking at the stuff that you didn’t get. It’s like Christmas Day, staring through the window at the neighbor’s house, and you’re sitting there in the cold.”
Yet she seems palpably torn between that bleak remorse and the unconditional love parents feel toward their children. At one point, Ms. Pinedo interrupted herself midsentence and turned to her son, who was in Mr. Martinez’s arms: “Yes, Papi, you are so stinking cute, and you are still my dream come true.”
This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
POMONA, CALIF. – When you first meet 17-month-old Aaron Martinez, it’s not obvious that something is catastrophically wrong.
What you see is a beautiful little boy with smooth, lustrous skin, an abundance of glossy brown hair, and a disarming smile. What you hear are coos and cries that don’t immediately signal anything is horribly awry.
But his parents, Adriana Pinedo and Hector Martinez, know the truth painfully well.
Although Ms. Pinedo’s doctors and midwife had described the pregnancy as “perfect” for all 9 months, Aaron was born with most of his brain cells dead, the result of two strokes and a massive bleed he sustained while in utero.
Doctors aren’t sure what caused the anomalies that left Aaron with virtually no cognitive function or physical mobility. His voluminous hair hides a head whose circumference is too small for his age. He has epilepsy that triggers multiple seizures each day, and his smile is not always what it seems. “It could be a smile; it could be a seizure,” Ms. Pinedo said.
Shortly after Aaron was born, doctors told Ms. Pinedo, 34, and Mr. Martinez, 35, there was no hope and they should “let nature take its course.” They would learn months later that the doctors had not expected the boy to live more than 5 days. It was on Day 5 that his parents put him in home hospice care, an arrangement that has continued into his second year of life.
The family gets weekly visits from hospice nurses, therapists, social workers, and a chaplain in the cramped one-bedroom apartment they rent from the people who live in the main house on the same lot on a quiet residential street in this Inland Empire city.
One of the main criteria for hospice care, established by Medicare largely for seniors but also applied to children, is a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live. Yet over the course of 17 months, Aaron’s medical team has repeatedly recertified his hospice eligibility.
Under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program are allowed, unlike adults, to be in hospice while continuing to receive curative or life-extending care. Commercial insurers are not required to cover this “concurrent care,” but many now do.
More than a decade since its inception, concurrent care is widely credited with improving the quality of life for many terminally ill children, easing stress on the family and, in some cases, sustaining hope for a cure. But the arrangement can contribute to a painful dilemma for parents like Ms. Pinedo and Mr. Martinez, who are torn between their fierce commitment to their son and the futility of knowing that his condition leaves him with no future worth hoping for.
“We could lose a life, but if he continues to live this way, we’ll lose three,” said Ms. Pinedo. “There’s no quality of life for him or for us.”
Aaron’s doctors now say he could conceivably live for years. His body hasn’t stopped growing since he was born. He’s in the 96th percentile for height for his age, and his weight is about average.
His parents have talked about “graduating” him from hospice. But he is never stable for long, and they welcome the visits from their hospice team. The seizures, sometimes 30 a day, are a persistent assault on his brain and, as he grows, the medications intended to control them must be changed or the doses recalibrated. He is at continual risk of gastrointestinal problems and potentially deadly fluid buildup in his lungs.
Ms. Pinedo, who works from home for a nonprofit public health organization, spends much of her time with Aaron, while Mr. Martinez works as a landscaper. She has chosen to live in the moment, she said, because otherwise her mind wanders to a future in which either “he could die – or he won’t, and I’ll end up changing the diapers of a 40-year-old man.” Either of those “are going to suck.”
While cancer is one of the major illnesses afflicting children in hospice, many others, like Aaron, have rare congenital defects, severe neurological impairments, or uncommon metabolic deficiencies.
“We have diseases that families tell us are 1 of 10 cases in the world,” said Glen Komatsu, MD, medical director of Torrance, Calif.–based TrinityKids Care, which provides home hospice services to Aaron and more than 70 other kids in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
In the years leading up to the ACA’s implementation, pediatric health advocates lobbied hard for the concurrent care provision. Without the possibility of life-extending care or hope for a cure, many parents refused to put their terminally ill kids in hospice, thinking it was tantamount to giving up on them. That meant the whole family missed out on the support hospice can provide, not just pain relief and comfort for the dying child, but emotional and spiritual care for parents and siblings under extreme duress.
TrinityKids Care, run by the large national Catholic health system Providence, doesn’t just send nurses, social workers, and chaplains into homes. For patients able to participate, and their siblings, it also offers art and science projects, exercise classes, movies, and music. During the pandemic, these activities have been conducted via Zoom, and volunteers deliver needed supplies to the children’s homes.
The ability to get treatments that prolong their lives is a major reason children in concurrent care are more likely than adults to outlive the 6-months-to-live diagnosis required for hospice.
“Concurrent care, by its very intention, very clearly is going to extend their lives, and by extending their lives they’re no longer going to be hospice-eligible if you use the 6-month life expectancy criteria,” said David Steinhorn, MD, a pediatric intensive care physician in Virginia, who has helped develop numerous children’s hospice programs across the United States.
Another factor is that kids, even sick ones, are simply more robust than many older people.
“Sick kids are often otherwise healthy, except for one organ,” said Debra Lotstein, MD, chief of the division of comfort and palliative care at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “They may have cancer in their body, but their hearts are good and their lungs are good, compared to a 90-year-old who at baseline is just not as resilient.”
All of Aaron Martinez’s vital organs, except for his brain, seem to be working. “There have been times when we’ve brought him in, and the nurse looks at the chart and looks at him, and she can’t believe it’s that child,” said Mr. Martinez.
When kids live past the 6-month life expectancy, they must be recertified to stay in hospice. In many cases, Dr. Steinhorn said, he is willing to recertify his pediatric patients indefinitely.
Even with doctors advocating for them, it’s not always easy for children to get into hospice care. Most hospices care primarily for adults and are reluctant to take kids.
“The hospice will say: ‘We don’t have the capacity to treat children. Our nurses aren’t trained. It’s different. We just can’t do it,’ ” said Lori Butterworth, cofounder of the Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition of California in Watsonville. “The other reason is not wanting to, because it’s existentially devastating and sad and hard.”
Finances also play a role. Home hospice care is paid at a per diem rate set by Medicare – slightly over $200 a day for the first 2 months, about $161 a day after that – and it is typically the same for kids and adults. Children, particularly those with rare conditions, often require more intensive and innovative care, so the per diem doesn’t stretch as far.
The concurrent care provision has made taking pediatric patients more viable for hospice organizations, Dr. Steinhorn and others said. Under the ACA, many of the expenses for certain medications and medical services can be shifted to the patient’s primary insurance, leaving hospices responsible for pain relief and comfort care.
Even so, the relatively small number of kids who die each year from protracted ailments hardly makes pediatric hospice an appealing line of business in an industry craving growth, especially one in which private equity investors are active and seeking a big payday.
In California, only 21 of 1,336 hospices reported having a specialized pediatric hospice program, and 59 said they served at least one patient under age 21, according to an analysis of 2020 state data by Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.
Hospice providers that do cater to children often face a more basic challenge: Even with the possibility of concurrent care, many parents still equate hospice with acceptance of death. That was the case initially for Matt and Reese Sonnen, Los Angeles residents whose daughter, Layla, was born with a seizure disorder that had no name: Her brain had simply failed to develop in the womb, and an MRI showed “fluid taking up space where the brain wasn’t,” her mother said.
When Layla’s team first mentioned hospice, “I was in the car on my phone, and I almost crashed the car,” Mrs. Sonnen recalled. “The first thought that came to mind was: ‘It is just the end,’ but we felt she was nowhere near it, because she was strong, she was mighty. She was my little girl. She was going to get through this.”
About 3 months later, as Layla’s nervous system deteriorated, causing her to writhe in pain, her parents agreed to enroll her in hospice with TrinityKids Care. She died weeks later, not long after her second birthday. She was in her mother’s arms, with Mr. Sonnen close by.
“All of a sudden, Layla breathed out a big rush of air. The nurse looked at me and said: ‘That was her last breath.’ I was literally breathing in her last breath,” Mrs. Sonnen recounted. “I never wanted to breathe again, because now I felt I had her in my lungs. Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me exhale.”
Layla’s parents have no regrets about their decision to put her in hospice. “It was the absolute right decision, and in hindsight we should have done it sooner,” Mr. Sonnen said. “She was suffering, and we had blinders on.”
Ms. Pinedo said she is “infinitely grateful” for hospice, despite the heartache of Aaron’s condition. Sometimes the social worker will stop by, she said, just to say hello and drop off a latte, a small gesture that can feel very uplifting. “They’ve been our lifeline,” she said.
Ms. Pinedo talks about a friend of hers with a healthy baby, also named Aaron, who is pregnant with her second child. “All the stuff that was on our list, they’re living. And I love them dearly. But it’s almost hard to look, because it’s like looking at the stuff that you didn’t get. It’s like Christmas Day, staring through the window at the neighbor’s house, and you’re sitting there in the cold.”
Yet she seems palpably torn between that bleak remorse and the unconditional love parents feel toward their children. At one point, Ms. Pinedo interrupted herself midsentence and turned to her son, who was in Mr. Martinez’s arms: “Yes, Papi, you are so stinking cute, and you are still my dream come true.”
This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
POMONA, CALIF. – When you first meet 17-month-old Aaron Martinez, it’s not obvious that something is catastrophically wrong.
What you see is a beautiful little boy with smooth, lustrous skin, an abundance of glossy brown hair, and a disarming smile. What you hear are coos and cries that don’t immediately signal anything is horribly awry.
But his parents, Adriana Pinedo and Hector Martinez, know the truth painfully well.
Although Ms. Pinedo’s doctors and midwife had described the pregnancy as “perfect” for all 9 months, Aaron was born with most of his brain cells dead, the result of two strokes and a massive bleed he sustained while in utero.
Doctors aren’t sure what caused the anomalies that left Aaron with virtually no cognitive function or physical mobility. His voluminous hair hides a head whose circumference is too small for his age. He has epilepsy that triggers multiple seizures each day, and his smile is not always what it seems. “It could be a smile; it could be a seizure,” Ms. Pinedo said.
Shortly after Aaron was born, doctors told Ms. Pinedo, 34, and Mr. Martinez, 35, there was no hope and they should “let nature take its course.” They would learn months later that the doctors had not expected the boy to live more than 5 days. It was on Day 5 that his parents put him in home hospice care, an arrangement that has continued into his second year of life.
The family gets weekly visits from hospice nurses, therapists, social workers, and a chaplain in the cramped one-bedroom apartment they rent from the people who live in the main house on the same lot on a quiet residential street in this Inland Empire city.
One of the main criteria for hospice care, established by Medicare largely for seniors but also applied to children, is a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live. Yet over the course of 17 months, Aaron’s medical team has repeatedly recertified his hospice eligibility.
Under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program are allowed, unlike adults, to be in hospice while continuing to receive curative or life-extending care. Commercial insurers are not required to cover this “concurrent care,” but many now do.
More than a decade since its inception, concurrent care is widely credited with improving the quality of life for many terminally ill children, easing stress on the family and, in some cases, sustaining hope for a cure. But the arrangement can contribute to a painful dilemma for parents like Ms. Pinedo and Mr. Martinez, who are torn between their fierce commitment to their son and the futility of knowing that his condition leaves him with no future worth hoping for.
“We could lose a life, but if he continues to live this way, we’ll lose three,” said Ms. Pinedo. “There’s no quality of life for him or for us.”
Aaron’s doctors now say he could conceivably live for years. His body hasn’t stopped growing since he was born. He’s in the 96th percentile for height for his age, and his weight is about average.
His parents have talked about “graduating” him from hospice. But he is never stable for long, and they welcome the visits from their hospice team. The seizures, sometimes 30 a day, are a persistent assault on his brain and, as he grows, the medications intended to control them must be changed or the doses recalibrated. He is at continual risk of gastrointestinal problems and potentially deadly fluid buildup in his lungs.
Ms. Pinedo, who works from home for a nonprofit public health organization, spends much of her time with Aaron, while Mr. Martinez works as a landscaper. She has chosen to live in the moment, she said, because otherwise her mind wanders to a future in which either “he could die – or he won’t, and I’ll end up changing the diapers of a 40-year-old man.” Either of those “are going to suck.”
While cancer is one of the major illnesses afflicting children in hospice, many others, like Aaron, have rare congenital defects, severe neurological impairments, or uncommon metabolic deficiencies.
“We have diseases that families tell us are 1 of 10 cases in the world,” said Glen Komatsu, MD, medical director of Torrance, Calif.–based TrinityKids Care, which provides home hospice services to Aaron and more than 70 other kids in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
In the years leading up to the ACA’s implementation, pediatric health advocates lobbied hard for the concurrent care provision. Without the possibility of life-extending care or hope for a cure, many parents refused to put their terminally ill kids in hospice, thinking it was tantamount to giving up on them. That meant the whole family missed out on the support hospice can provide, not just pain relief and comfort for the dying child, but emotional and spiritual care for parents and siblings under extreme duress.
TrinityKids Care, run by the large national Catholic health system Providence, doesn’t just send nurses, social workers, and chaplains into homes. For patients able to participate, and their siblings, it also offers art and science projects, exercise classes, movies, and music. During the pandemic, these activities have been conducted via Zoom, and volunteers deliver needed supplies to the children’s homes.
The ability to get treatments that prolong their lives is a major reason children in concurrent care are more likely than adults to outlive the 6-months-to-live diagnosis required for hospice.
“Concurrent care, by its very intention, very clearly is going to extend their lives, and by extending their lives they’re no longer going to be hospice-eligible if you use the 6-month life expectancy criteria,” said David Steinhorn, MD, a pediatric intensive care physician in Virginia, who has helped develop numerous children’s hospice programs across the United States.
Another factor is that kids, even sick ones, are simply more robust than many older people.
“Sick kids are often otherwise healthy, except for one organ,” said Debra Lotstein, MD, chief of the division of comfort and palliative care at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “They may have cancer in their body, but their hearts are good and their lungs are good, compared to a 90-year-old who at baseline is just not as resilient.”
All of Aaron Martinez’s vital organs, except for his brain, seem to be working. “There have been times when we’ve brought him in, and the nurse looks at the chart and looks at him, and she can’t believe it’s that child,” said Mr. Martinez.
When kids live past the 6-month life expectancy, they must be recertified to stay in hospice. In many cases, Dr. Steinhorn said, he is willing to recertify his pediatric patients indefinitely.
Even with doctors advocating for them, it’s not always easy for children to get into hospice care. Most hospices care primarily for adults and are reluctant to take kids.
“The hospice will say: ‘We don’t have the capacity to treat children. Our nurses aren’t trained. It’s different. We just can’t do it,’ ” said Lori Butterworth, cofounder of the Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition of California in Watsonville. “The other reason is not wanting to, because it’s existentially devastating and sad and hard.”
Finances also play a role. Home hospice care is paid at a per diem rate set by Medicare – slightly over $200 a day for the first 2 months, about $161 a day after that – and it is typically the same for kids and adults. Children, particularly those with rare conditions, often require more intensive and innovative care, so the per diem doesn’t stretch as far.
The concurrent care provision has made taking pediatric patients more viable for hospice organizations, Dr. Steinhorn and others said. Under the ACA, many of the expenses for certain medications and medical services can be shifted to the patient’s primary insurance, leaving hospices responsible for pain relief and comfort care.
Even so, the relatively small number of kids who die each year from protracted ailments hardly makes pediatric hospice an appealing line of business in an industry craving growth, especially one in which private equity investors are active and seeking a big payday.
In California, only 21 of 1,336 hospices reported having a specialized pediatric hospice program, and 59 said they served at least one patient under age 21, according to an analysis of 2020 state data by Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.
Hospice providers that do cater to children often face a more basic challenge: Even with the possibility of concurrent care, many parents still equate hospice with acceptance of death. That was the case initially for Matt and Reese Sonnen, Los Angeles residents whose daughter, Layla, was born with a seizure disorder that had no name: Her brain had simply failed to develop in the womb, and an MRI showed “fluid taking up space where the brain wasn’t,” her mother said.
When Layla’s team first mentioned hospice, “I was in the car on my phone, and I almost crashed the car,” Mrs. Sonnen recalled. “The first thought that came to mind was: ‘It is just the end,’ but we felt she was nowhere near it, because she was strong, she was mighty. She was my little girl. She was going to get through this.”
About 3 months later, as Layla’s nervous system deteriorated, causing her to writhe in pain, her parents agreed to enroll her in hospice with TrinityKids Care. She died weeks later, not long after her second birthday. She was in her mother’s arms, with Mr. Sonnen close by.
“All of a sudden, Layla breathed out a big rush of air. The nurse looked at me and said: ‘That was her last breath.’ I was literally breathing in her last breath,” Mrs. Sonnen recounted. “I never wanted to breathe again, because now I felt I had her in my lungs. Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me exhale.”
Layla’s parents have no regrets about their decision to put her in hospice. “It was the absolute right decision, and in hindsight we should have done it sooner,” Mr. Sonnen said. “She was suffering, and we had blinders on.”
Ms. Pinedo said she is “infinitely grateful” for hospice, despite the heartache of Aaron’s condition. Sometimes the social worker will stop by, she said, just to say hello and drop off a latte, a small gesture that can feel very uplifting. “They’ve been our lifeline,” she said.
Ms. Pinedo talks about a friend of hers with a healthy baby, also named Aaron, who is pregnant with her second child. “All the stuff that was on our list, they’re living. And I love them dearly. But it’s almost hard to look, because it’s like looking at the stuff that you didn’t get. It’s like Christmas Day, staring through the window at the neighbor’s house, and you’re sitting there in the cold.”
Yet she seems palpably torn between that bleak remorse and the unconditional love parents feel toward their children. At one point, Ms. Pinedo interrupted herself midsentence and turned to her son, who was in Mr. Martinez’s arms: “Yes, Papi, you are so stinking cute, and you are still my dream come true.”
This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Genetic tests create treatment opportunities and confusion for breast cancer patients
The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.
Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.
A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.
But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.
Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.
When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.
“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.
Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.
But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.
It can also confuse patients.
“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.
For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.
But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.
“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.
Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.
And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.
“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”
After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.
(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)
Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.
But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.
At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”
As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.
There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.
The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.
Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.
“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.
Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.
Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.
The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.
“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.
Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.
A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.
But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.
Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.
When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.
“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.
Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.
But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.
It can also confuse patients.
“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.
For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.
But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.
“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.
Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.
And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.
“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”
After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.
(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)
Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.
But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.
At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”
As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.
There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.
The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.
Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.
“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.
Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.
Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.
The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.
“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.
Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.
A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.
But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.
Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.
When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.
“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.
Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.
But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.
It can also confuse patients.
“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.
For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.
But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.
“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.
Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.
And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.
“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”
After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.
(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)
Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.
But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.
At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”
As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.
There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.
The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.
Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.
“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.
Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.
Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.
The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.
“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.