Commentary

Questions about omega-3 fatty acid supplements come up often in the atrial fibrillation (AFib) clinic.

The story begins with the simple observation that populations who eat lots of oily fish have fewer coronary events. This correlation provoked great interest in concentrating fish oils in pill form and studying their use to promote health.

A small post hoc study from a group in Norway stimulated me to review what we do and don’t know about fish pills, as I call them in clinic.
 

OMENI secondary analysis

Peder Myhre, MD, and colleagues recently published a secondary analysis of the OMENI trial looking at both the risk and possible causes of AFib in the omega-3 group.

The OMENI trial randomly assigned slightly more than 1,000 older patients (mean age, 75 years) post–myocardial infarction to either 1.8 g/d of fish oil supplements versus placebo for 2 years. The supplements comprised 930 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 660 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The main trial reported no difference in a composite primary endpoint of MI, revascularization, stroke, death, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The secondary analysis explored the 75% of patients in the main trial who had no history of AFib. It looked at how many in each group developed either true clinical AFib or what the authors called micro-AFib, defined as short bursts of irregular atrial activity lasting seconds.

The sub-analysis had three main findings: Patients in the supplement arm had a 90% higher rate of AFib or micro-AFib, compared with patients on placebo, EPA had the strongest effect on the association, and there was a graded risk for AFib with increasing serum EPA levels.  

The authors raised the possibility that more micro-AFib might be a possible mediator of AFib risk.
 

Trials of low-dose EPA and DHA

First, the low-dose trials. In the ASCEND trial from 2018, more than 15,000 patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to either 1 g of omega-3 fatty acids (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) or mineral oil.

The trial was neutral. After 7.4 years, the primary endpoint of MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death occurred in 8.9% of the supplement group versus 9.2% of the placebo arm.The incidence of AFib was higher in the omega-3 group but did not reach statistical significance (2.1% vs. 1.7% for placebo; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.54).

Another neutral CV trial, VITAL, specifically studied the effects of marine omega-3 pills (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) in older adults without heart disease, cancer, or AFib. After slightly more than 5 years, AFib occurred at a similar rate in the active arm and placebo arms (3.7% vs. 3.4% for placebo; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19)
 

Trials of very high-dose marine omega-3s

Next came trials of higher doses in higher-risk populations.

In 2020, JAMA published the STRENGTH trial, which compared 4 g/d of a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA with a corn oil placebo in more than 13,000 patients who either had established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or were at high risk for ASCVD.

The trial was terminated early because of futility and a signal of increased AFib risk in the supplement arm.

Nearly the same number of patients in the supplement versus placebo arm experienced a primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events: 12.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.

AFib was a tertiary endpoint in this trial. An increase in investigator-reported new-onset AFib was observed in the omega-3 group: 2.2% vs. 1.3% for corn oil (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.29-2.21; nominal P < .001).

The REDUCE-IT trial randomly assigned more than 8,000 patients who had ASCVD or diabetes and high ASCVD risk and elevated triglyceride levels to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily, a concentrated form of EPA, or a mineral oil placebo.

After nearly 5 years, there was a 4.8% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint of CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unstable angina with icosapent ethyl. An increase in atherogenic biomarkers in the mineral oil placebo complicated interpretation of this trial.

Hospitalization for AFib or flutter occurred in 3.1% of the active arm versus 2.1% of the mineral oil group (P = .004).
 

Meta-analysis of marine omega-3 supplement trials

In 2021, Baris Gencer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of these five trials plus 2 more (GISSI-HF and RP) looking specifically at risk for AFib. Their final analysis included more than 81,000 patients followed for nearly 5 years.

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements associated with a 25% increase in the risk for AFib (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46P =.013). Exploring further, they noted a dose-dependent relationship. Most of the increased risk occurred in trials that tested greater than 1 g/d.
 

Summary

When faced with surprise findings, I like to think things through.

First about plausibility. Omega-3 fatty acids clearly exert electrophysiologic effects on cardiac cells, an increase in AFib risk is plausible. The exact underlying mechanism may be unknown, but exact mechanisms are less important than actual clinical effects (see sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors).

What about causality? Factors supporting causality include plausibility, consistency of increased AFib risk in multiple studies, and a dose-response relationship.

I see multiple clinical implications of this observation.

The first is the power of the randomized trial to inform practice. If we relied only on observational evidence, we might have assumed that since high fish consumption in populations associated with lower rates of cardiac events, fish oil supplementation would also reduce cardiac events. Other than the outlier trial, REDUCE-IT, with its mineral oil placebo, the preponderance of the randomized controlled trial evidence does not support fish oils for the reduction of CV events.

Randomized controlled trials also exposed the AFib risk. This would have been difficult to sort out in nonrandom observational studies.

Another underappreciated lesson is the notion that drugs, including supplements, can have off-target effects.

Consider the case of statin drugs. It is widely assumed that statins reduce cardiac events by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Yet, statins became a mainstay not because of LDL-C lowering but because multiple trials found that this class of drugs reduced cardiac events without increasing adverse effects.

Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglyceride levels, but this is not enough to adopt the use of these pills. The lack of consistent reduction in CV events and the off-target signal of AFib risk argue against routine use of fish-oil pills.

I will close with uncertainty. Though there is plausibility and multiple reasons to infer causality of marine omega-3s in increasing AFib risk, the effect size remains unknown.

In an editorial accompanying the recent meta-analysis, epidemiologist Michelle Samuel, MPH, PhD, and electrophysiologist Stanley Nattel, MD, cautioned readers on a technical but important point. It concerns the matter of competing risks, such as death, in the analysis of AFib risk, meaning that patients who died may have developed AFib had they lived. They provide a detailed explanation in the open access article, but the take-home is that the exact effect size is difficult to quantify without patient-level original data.

No matter. I find the signal of increased AFib risk an important one to use at the bedside.

Intermittent AFib has an unpredictable natural history. It often resolves as mysteriously as it arises. When patients take fish-oil supplements, I cite these studies, note the lack of CV protection, then I recommend stopping the pills.

This allows for one of the most important interventions in AFib care: time.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist with Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Questions about omega-3 fatty acid supplements come up often in the atrial fibrillation (AFib) clinic.

The story begins with the simple observation that populations who eat lots of oily fish have fewer coronary events. This correlation provoked great interest in concentrating fish oils in pill form and studying their use to promote health.

A small post hoc study from a group in Norway stimulated me to review what we do and don’t know about fish pills, as I call them in clinic.
 

OMENI secondary analysis

Peder Myhre, MD, and colleagues recently published a secondary analysis of the OMENI trial looking at both the risk and possible causes of AFib in the omega-3 group.

The OMENI trial randomly assigned slightly more than 1,000 older patients (mean age, 75 years) post–myocardial infarction to either 1.8 g/d of fish oil supplements versus placebo for 2 years. The supplements comprised 930 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 660 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The main trial reported no difference in a composite primary endpoint of MI, revascularization, stroke, death, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The secondary analysis explored the 75% of patients in the main trial who had no history of AFib. It looked at how many in each group developed either true clinical AFib or what the authors called micro-AFib, defined as short bursts of irregular atrial activity lasting seconds.

The sub-analysis had three main findings: Patients in the supplement arm had a 90% higher rate of AFib or micro-AFib, compared with patients on placebo, EPA had the strongest effect on the association, and there was a graded risk for AFib with increasing serum EPA levels.  

The authors raised the possibility that more micro-AFib might be a possible mediator of AFib risk.
 

Trials of low-dose EPA and DHA

First, the low-dose trials. In the ASCEND trial from 2018, more than 15,000 patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to either 1 g of omega-3 fatty acids (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) or mineral oil.

The trial was neutral. After 7.4 years, the primary endpoint of MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death occurred in 8.9% of the supplement group versus 9.2% of the placebo arm.The incidence of AFib was higher in the omega-3 group but did not reach statistical significance (2.1% vs. 1.7% for placebo; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.54).

Another neutral CV trial, VITAL, specifically studied the effects of marine omega-3 pills (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) in older adults without heart disease, cancer, or AFib. After slightly more than 5 years, AFib occurred at a similar rate in the active arm and placebo arms (3.7% vs. 3.4% for placebo; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19)
 

Trials of very high-dose marine omega-3s

Next came trials of higher doses in higher-risk populations.

In 2020, JAMA published the STRENGTH trial, which compared 4 g/d of a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA with a corn oil placebo in more than 13,000 patients who either had established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or were at high risk for ASCVD.

The trial was terminated early because of futility and a signal of increased AFib risk in the supplement arm.

Nearly the same number of patients in the supplement versus placebo arm experienced a primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events: 12.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.

AFib was a tertiary endpoint in this trial. An increase in investigator-reported new-onset AFib was observed in the omega-3 group: 2.2% vs. 1.3% for corn oil (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.29-2.21; nominal P < .001).

The REDUCE-IT trial randomly assigned more than 8,000 patients who had ASCVD or diabetes and high ASCVD risk and elevated triglyceride levels to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily, a concentrated form of EPA, or a mineral oil placebo.

After nearly 5 years, there was a 4.8% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint of CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unstable angina with icosapent ethyl. An increase in atherogenic biomarkers in the mineral oil placebo complicated interpretation of this trial.

Hospitalization for AFib or flutter occurred in 3.1% of the active arm versus 2.1% of the mineral oil group (P = .004).
 

Meta-analysis of marine omega-3 supplement trials

In 2021, Baris Gencer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of these five trials plus 2 more (GISSI-HF and RP) looking specifically at risk for AFib. Their final analysis included more than 81,000 patients followed for nearly 5 years.

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements associated with a 25% increase in the risk for AFib (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46P =.013). Exploring further, they noted a dose-dependent relationship. Most of the increased risk occurred in trials that tested greater than 1 g/d.
 

Summary

When faced with surprise findings, I like to think things through.

First about plausibility. Omega-3 fatty acids clearly exert electrophysiologic effects on cardiac cells, an increase in AFib risk is plausible. The exact underlying mechanism may be unknown, but exact mechanisms are less important than actual clinical effects (see sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors).

What about causality? Factors supporting causality include plausibility, consistency of increased AFib risk in multiple studies, and a dose-response relationship.

I see multiple clinical implications of this observation.

The first is the power of the randomized trial to inform practice. If we relied only on observational evidence, we might have assumed that since high fish consumption in populations associated with lower rates of cardiac events, fish oil supplementation would also reduce cardiac events. Other than the outlier trial, REDUCE-IT, with its mineral oil placebo, the preponderance of the randomized controlled trial evidence does not support fish oils for the reduction of CV events.

Randomized controlled trials also exposed the AFib risk. This would have been difficult to sort out in nonrandom observational studies.

Another underappreciated lesson is the notion that drugs, including supplements, can have off-target effects.

Consider the case of statin drugs. It is widely assumed that statins reduce cardiac events by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Yet, statins became a mainstay not because of LDL-C lowering but because multiple trials found that this class of drugs reduced cardiac events without increasing adverse effects.

Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglyceride levels, but this is not enough to adopt the use of these pills. The lack of consistent reduction in CV events and the off-target signal of AFib risk argue against routine use of fish-oil pills.

I will close with uncertainty. Though there is plausibility and multiple reasons to infer causality of marine omega-3s in increasing AFib risk, the effect size remains unknown.

In an editorial accompanying the recent meta-analysis, epidemiologist Michelle Samuel, MPH, PhD, and electrophysiologist Stanley Nattel, MD, cautioned readers on a technical but important point. It concerns the matter of competing risks, such as death, in the analysis of AFib risk, meaning that patients who died may have developed AFib had they lived. They provide a detailed explanation in the open access article, but the take-home is that the exact effect size is difficult to quantify without patient-level original data.

No matter. I find the signal of increased AFib risk an important one to use at the bedside.

Intermittent AFib has an unpredictable natural history. It often resolves as mysteriously as it arises. When patients take fish-oil supplements, I cite these studies, note the lack of CV protection, then I recommend stopping the pills.

This allows for one of the most important interventions in AFib care: time.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist with Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Questions about omega-3 fatty acid supplements come up often in the atrial fibrillation (AFib) clinic.

The story begins with the simple observation that populations who eat lots of oily fish have fewer coronary events. This correlation provoked great interest in concentrating fish oils in pill form and studying their use to promote health.

A small post hoc study from a group in Norway stimulated me to review what we do and don’t know about fish pills, as I call them in clinic.
 

OMENI secondary analysis

Peder Myhre, MD, and colleagues recently published a secondary analysis of the OMENI trial looking at both the risk and possible causes of AFib in the omega-3 group.

The OMENI trial randomly assigned slightly more than 1,000 older patients (mean age, 75 years) post–myocardial infarction to either 1.8 g/d of fish oil supplements versus placebo for 2 years. The supplements comprised 930 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 660 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The main trial reported no difference in a composite primary endpoint of MI, revascularization, stroke, death, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The secondary analysis explored the 75% of patients in the main trial who had no history of AFib. It looked at how many in each group developed either true clinical AFib or what the authors called micro-AFib, defined as short bursts of irregular atrial activity lasting seconds.

The sub-analysis had three main findings: Patients in the supplement arm had a 90% higher rate of AFib or micro-AFib, compared with patients on placebo, EPA had the strongest effect on the association, and there was a graded risk for AFib with increasing serum EPA levels.  

The authors raised the possibility that more micro-AFib might be a possible mediator of AFib risk.
 

Trials of low-dose EPA and DHA

First, the low-dose trials. In the ASCEND trial from 2018, more than 15,000 patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to either 1 g of omega-3 fatty acids (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) or mineral oil.

The trial was neutral. After 7.4 years, the primary endpoint of MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death occurred in 8.9% of the supplement group versus 9.2% of the placebo arm.The incidence of AFib was higher in the omega-3 group but did not reach statistical significance (2.1% vs. 1.7% for placebo; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.54).

Another neutral CV trial, VITAL, specifically studied the effects of marine omega-3 pills (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) in older adults without heart disease, cancer, or AFib. After slightly more than 5 years, AFib occurred at a similar rate in the active arm and placebo arms (3.7% vs. 3.4% for placebo; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19)
 

Trials of very high-dose marine omega-3s

Next came trials of higher doses in higher-risk populations.

In 2020, JAMA published the STRENGTH trial, which compared 4 g/d of a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA with a corn oil placebo in more than 13,000 patients who either had established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or were at high risk for ASCVD.

The trial was terminated early because of futility and a signal of increased AFib risk in the supplement arm.

Nearly the same number of patients in the supplement versus placebo arm experienced a primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events: 12.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.

AFib was a tertiary endpoint in this trial. An increase in investigator-reported new-onset AFib was observed in the omega-3 group: 2.2% vs. 1.3% for corn oil (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.29-2.21; nominal P < .001).

The REDUCE-IT trial randomly assigned more than 8,000 patients who had ASCVD or diabetes and high ASCVD risk and elevated triglyceride levels to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily, a concentrated form of EPA, or a mineral oil placebo.

After nearly 5 years, there was a 4.8% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint of CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unstable angina with icosapent ethyl. An increase in atherogenic biomarkers in the mineral oil placebo complicated interpretation of this trial.

Hospitalization for AFib or flutter occurred in 3.1% of the active arm versus 2.1% of the mineral oil group (P = .004).
 

Meta-analysis of marine omega-3 supplement trials

In 2021, Baris Gencer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of these five trials plus 2 more (GISSI-HF and RP) looking specifically at risk for AFib. Their final analysis included more than 81,000 patients followed for nearly 5 years.

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements associated with a 25% increase in the risk for AFib (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46P =.013). Exploring further, they noted a dose-dependent relationship. Most of the increased risk occurred in trials that tested greater than 1 g/d.
 

Summary

When faced with surprise findings, I like to think things through.

First about plausibility. Omega-3 fatty acids clearly exert electrophysiologic effects on cardiac cells, an increase in AFib risk is plausible. The exact underlying mechanism may be unknown, but exact mechanisms are less important than actual clinical effects (see sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors).

What about causality? Factors supporting causality include plausibility, consistency of increased AFib risk in multiple studies, and a dose-response relationship.

I see multiple clinical implications of this observation.

The first is the power of the randomized trial to inform practice. If we relied only on observational evidence, we might have assumed that since high fish consumption in populations associated with lower rates of cardiac events, fish oil supplementation would also reduce cardiac events. Other than the outlier trial, REDUCE-IT, with its mineral oil placebo, the preponderance of the randomized controlled trial evidence does not support fish oils for the reduction of CV events.

Randomized controlled trials also exposed the AFib risk. This would have been difficult to sort out in nonrandom observational studies.

Another underappreciated lesson is the notion that drugs, including supplements, can have off-target effects.

Consider the case of statin drugs. It is widely assumed that statins reduce cardiac events by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Yet, statins became a mainstay not because of LDL-C lowering but because multiple trials found that this class of drugs reduced cardiac events without increasing adverse effects.

Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglyceride levels, but this is not enough to adopt the use of these pills. The lack of consistent reduction in CV events and the off-target signal of AFib risk argue against routine use of fish-oil pills.

I will close with uncertainty. Though there is plausibility and multiple reasons to infer causality of marine omega-3s in increasing AFib risk, the effect size remains unknown.

In an editorial accompanying the recent meta-analysis, epidemiologist Michelle Samuel, MPH, PhD, and electrophysiologist Stanley Nattel, MD, cautioned readers on a technical but important point. It concerns the matter of competing risks, such as death, in the analysis of AFib risk, meaning that patients who died may have developed AFib had they lived. They provide a detailed explanation in the open access article, but the take-home is that the exact effect size is difficult to quantify without patient-level original data.

No matter. I find the signal of increased AFib risk an important one to use at the bedside.

Intermittent AFib has an unpredictable natural history. It often resolves as mysteriously as it arises. When patients take fish-oil supplements, I cite these studies, note the lack of CV protection, then I recommend stopping the pills.

This allows for one of the most important interventions in AFib care: time.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist with Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need to think about the ways that participating in clinical trials results in increased out-of-pocket costs to our patients and how that limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate. That should be a problem for us.

There are many subtle and some egregious ways that participating in clinical trials can result in increased costs. We may ask patients to come to the clinic more frequently. That may mean costs for transportation, wear and tear on your car, and gas prices. It may also mean that if you work in a job where you don’t have time off, and if you’re not at work, you don’t get paid. That’s a major hit to your take-home pay.

We also need to take a close and more honest look at our study budgets and what we consider standard of care. Now, this becomes a slippery slope because there are clear recommendations that we would all agree, but there are also differences of practice and differences of opinion.

How often should patients with advanced disease, who clinically are doing well, have scans to evaluate their disease status and look for subtle evidence of progression? Are laboratory studies part of the follow-up in patients in the adjuvant setting? Did you really need a urinalysis in somebody who’s going to be starting chemotherapy? Do you need an EKG if you’re going to be giving them a drug that doesn’t have potential cardiac toxicity, for which QTc prolongation is not a problem?

Those are often included in our clinical trials. In some cases, they might be paid for by the trial. In other cases, they’re billed to the insurance provider, which means they’ll contribute to deductibles and copays will apply. It is very likely that they will cost your patient something out of pocket.

Now, this becomes important because many of our consent forms would specifically say that things that are only done for the study are paid for by the study. How we define standard of care becomes vitally important. These issues have not been linked in this way frequently. It is time for us to tackle this problem and think about how we financially support the additional costs of care that can be real barriers for patients to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trials are how we make progress. The more patients who are able to participate in clinical trials, the better it is for all of us and all our future patients.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need to think about the ways that participating in clinical trials results in increased out-of-pocket costs to our patients and how that limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate. That should be a problem for us.

There are many subtle and some egregious ways that participating in clinical trials can result in increased costs. We may ask patients to come to the clinic more frequently. That may mean costs for transportation, wear and tear on your car, and gas prices. It may also mean that if you work in a job where you don’t have time off, and if you’re not at work, you don’t get paid. That’s a major hit to your take-home pay.

We also need to take a close and more honest look at our study budgets and what we consider standard of care. Now, this becomes a slippery slope because there are clear recommendations that we would all agree, but there are also differences of practice and differences of opinion.

How often should patients with advanced disease, who clinically are doing well, have scans to evaluate their disease status and look for subtle evidence of progression? Are laboratory studies part of the follow-up in patients in the adjuvant setting? Did you really need a urinalysis in somebody who’s going to be starting chemotherapy? Do you need an EKG if you’re going to be giving them a drug that doesn’t have potential cardiac toxicity, for which QTc prolongation is not a problem?

Those are often included in our clinical trials. In some cases, they might be paid for by the trial. In other cases, they’re billed to the insurance provider, which means they’ll contribute to deductibles and copays will apply. It is very likely that they will cost your patient something out of pocket.

Now, this becomes important because many of our consent forms would specifically say that things that are only done for the study are paid for by the study. How we define standard of care becomes vitally important. These issues have not been linked in this way frequently. It is time for us to tackle this problem and think about how we financially support the additional costs of care that can be real barriers for patients to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trials are how we make progress. The more patients who are able to participate in clinical trials, the better it is for all of us and all our future patients.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need to think about the ways that participating in clinical trials results in increased out-of-pocket costs to our patients and how that limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate. That should be a problem for us.

There are many subtle and some egregious ways that participating in clinical trials can result in increased costs. We may ask patients to come to the clinic more frequently. That may mean costs for transportation, wear and tear on your car, and gas prices. It may also mean that if you work in a job where you don’t have time off, and if you’re not at work, you don’t get paid. That’s a major hit to your take-home pay.

We also need to take a close and more honest look at our study budgets and what we consider standard of care. Now, this becomes a slippery slope because there are clear recommendations that we would all agree, but there are also differences of practice and differences of opinion.

How often should patients with advanced disease, who clinically are doing well, have scans to evaluate their disease status and look for subtle evidence of progression? Are laboratory studies part of the follow-up in patients in the adjuvant setting? Did you really need a urinalysis in somebody who’s going to be starting chemotherapy? Do you need an EKG if you’re going to be giving them a drug that doesn’t have potential cardiac toxicity, for which QTc prolongation is not a problem?

Those are often included in our clinical trials. In some cases, they might be paid for by the trial. In other cases, they’re billed to the insurance provider, which means they’ll contribute to deductibles and copays will apply. It is very likely that they will cost your patient something out of pocket.

Now, this becomes important because many of our consent forms would specifically say that things that are only done for the study are paid for by the study. How we define standard of care becomes vitally important. These issues have not been linked in this way frequently. It is time for us to tackle this problem and think about how we financially support the additional costs of care that can be real barriers for patients to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trials are how we make progress. The more patients who are able to participate in clinical trials, the better it is for all of us and all our future patients.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery, director of limb preservation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery, director of limb preservation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery, director of limb preservation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Until the 19th century there was nothing even resembling our current conception of the medical record. A few physicians may have kept personal notes, observations, and some sketches of their patients primarily to be used in teaching medical students or as part of their own curiosity-driven research. However, around 1800 the Governor Council of the State of New York adopted a proposition that all home doctors should register their medical cases again to be used as an educational tool. By 1830 these registries became annual reporting requirements that included admissions and discharges, treatment results, and expenditures. It shouldn’t surprise you learn that a review of these entries could be linked to a doctor’s prospects for promotion.

In 1919 the American College of Surgeons attempted to standardize its members’ “treatment diaries” to look something more like our current medical records with a history, lab tests, diagnosis, treatment plan, and something akin to daily progress notes. However, as late as the 1970s, when I began primary care practice, there were very few dictates on what our office notes should contain. A few (not including myself) had been trained to use a S.O.A.P. format (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) to organize their observations. Back then I viewed my office records as primarily a mnemonic device and only because I had a partner did I make any passing attempt at legibility.

With AI staring us in the face and threatening to expand what has become an already bloated medical record, it may be time to reconsider the purpose of the medical record.

Although there was a time when a doctor’s notes simply functioned as a mnemonic, few physicians today practice in isolation and their records must now serve as a vehicle to communicate with covering physicians and consultants.

How detailed do those notes need to be? Do we need more than the hard data – the numbers, the prescriptions, the biometrics, the chronology of the patient’s procedures? As a covering physician or consultant, I’m not really that interested in your subjective observations. It’s not that I don’t trust you, but like any good physician I’m going to take my own history directly from the patient and do my own physical exam. You may have missed something and I owe the patient a fresh look and listen before I render an opinion or prescribe a management plan.

The medical record has become a detailed invoice to be attached to your bill to third-party payers. You need to prove to them that your service has some value. It’s not that the third-party payers don’t trust you ... well maybe that’s the issue. They don’t. So you have to prove to them that you really did something. Since they weren’t in the exam room, you must document that you asked the patient questions, did a thorough exam, and spent a specified amount of time at it. Of course that assumes that there is a direct correlation between the amount of time you spent with the patient and the quality of care. Which isn’t always the case. One sentence merely stating that you are a well-trained professional and did a thorough job doesn’t seem to be good enough. It works for the plumber and the electrician. But again, it’s that trust thing.

Of course there are the licensing and certification organizations that have a legitimate interest in the quality of your work. Because having an observer following you around for a day or two is impractical (which I still think is a good idea), you need to include evidence in your chart that you practice the standard of care by following accepted screening measures and treating according to standard guidelines.

And finally, while we are talking about trust, there is the whole risk management thing – maybe the most potent inflater of medical records. The lawyer-promoted myth “if you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen” encourages doctors to use voluminous verbiage merely to give your lawyer ammunition when you find yourself in a he-said/she-said situation.

Of course all of this needs to be carefully worded because the patient now has and deserves the right to review his or her medical records. And this might be the only good news. AI can be taught to create a medical record that is complete and more easily read and digested by the patient. This could make the records even more voluminous and as more patients become familiar with their own health records they may begin to demand that they become more concise and actually reflect what went on in the visit.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Until the 19th century there was nothing even resembling our current conception of the medical record. A few physicians may have kept personal notes, observations, and some sketches of their patients primarily to be used in teaching medical students or as part of their own curiosity-driven research. However, around 1800 the Governor Council of the State of New York adopted a proposition that all home doctors should register their medical cases again to be used as an educational tool. By 1830 these registries became annual reporting requirements that included admissions and discharges, treatment results, and expenditures. It shouldn’t surprise you learn that a review of these entries could be linked to a doctor’s prospects for promotion.

In 1919 the American College of Surgeons attempted to standardize its members’ “treatment diaries” to look something more like our current medical records with a history, lab tests, diagnosis, treatment plan, and something akin to daily progress notes. However, as late as the 1970s, when I began primary care practice, there were very few dictates on what our office notes should contain. A few (not including myself) had been trained to use a S.O.A.P. format (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) to organize their observations. Back then I viewed my office records as primarily a mnemonic device and only because I had a partner did I make any passing attempt at legibility.

With AI staring us in the face and threatening to expand what has become an already bloated medical record, it may be time to reconsider the purpose of the medical record.

Although there was a time when a doctor’s notes simply functioned as a mnemonic, few physicians today practice in isolation and their records must now serve as a vehicle to communicate with covering physicians and consultants.

How detailed do those notes need to be? Do we need more than the hard data – the numbers, the prescriptions, the biometrics, the chronology of the patient’s procedures? As a covering physician or consultant, I’m not really that interested in your subjective observations. It’s not that I don’t trust you, but like any good physician I’m going to take my own history directly from the patient and do my own physical exam. You may have missed something and I owe the patient a fresh look and listen before I render an opinion or prescribe a management plan.

The medical record has become a detailed invoice to be attached to your bill to third-party payers. You need to prove to them that your service has some value. It’s not that the third-party payers don’t trust you ... well maybe that’s the issue. They don’t. So you have to prove to them that you really did something. Since they weren’t in the exam room, you must document that you asked the patient questions, did a thorough exam, and spent a specified amount of time at it. Of course that assumes that there is a direct correlation between the amount of time you spent with the patient and the quality of care. Which isn’t always the case. One sentence merely stating that you are a well-trained professional and did a thorough job doesn’t seem to be good enough. It works for the plumber and the electrician. But again, it’s that trust thing.

Of course there are the licensing and certification organizations that have a legitimate interest in the quality of your work. Because having an observer following you around for a day or two is impractical (which I still think is a good idea), you need to include evidence in your chart that you practice the standard of care by following accepted screening measures and treating according to standard guidelines.

And finally, while we are talking about trust, there is the whole risk management thing – maybe the most potent inflater of medical records. The lawyer-promoted myth “if you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen” encourages doctors to use voluminous verbiage merely to give your lawyer ammunition when you find yourself in a he-said/she-said situation.

Of course all of this needs to be carefully worded because the patient now has and deserves the right to review his or her medical records. And this might be the only good news. AI can be taught to create a medical record that is complete and more easily read and digested by the patient. This could make the records even more voluminous and as more patients become familiar with their own health records they may begin to demand that they become more concise and actually reflect what went on in the visit.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Until the 19th century there was nothing even resembling our current conception of the medical record. A few physicians may have kept personal notes, observations, and some sketches of their patients primarily to be used in teaching medical students or as part of their own curiosity-driven research. However, around 1800 the Governor Council of the State of New York adopted a proposition that all home doctors should register their medical cases again to be used as an educational tool. By 1830 these registries became annual reporting requirements that included admissions and discharges, treatment results, and expenditures. It shouldn’t surprise you learn that a review of these entries could be linked to a doctor’s prospects for promotion.

In 1919 the American College of Surgeons attempted to standardize its members’ “treatment diaries” to look something more like our current medical records with a history, lab tests, diagnosis, treatment plan, and something akin to daily progress notes. However, as late as the 1970s, when I began primary care practice, there were very few dictates on what our office notes should contain. A few (not including myself) had been trained to use a S.O.A.P. format (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) to organize their observations. Back then I viewed my office records as primarily a mnemonic device and only because I had a partner did I make any passing attempt at legibility.

With AI staring us in the face and threatening to expand what has become an already bloated medical record, it may be time to reconsider the purpose of the medical record.

Although there was a time when a doctor’s notes simply functioned as a mnemonic, few physicians today practice in isolation and their records must now serve as a vehicle to communicate with covering physicians and consultants.

How detailed do those notes need to be? Do we need more than the hard data – the numbers, the prescriptions, the biometrics, the chronology of the patient’s procedures? As a covering physician or consultant, I’m not really that interested in your subjective observations. It’s not that I don’t trust you, but like any good physician I’m going to take my own history directly from the patient and do my own physical exam. You may have missed something and I owe the patient a fresh look and listen before I render an opinion or prescribe a management plan.

The medical record has become a detailed invoice to be attached to your bill to third-party payers. You need to prove to them that your service has some value. It’s not that the third-party payers don’t trust you ... well maybe that’s the issue. They don’t. So you have to prove to them that you really did something. Since they weren’t in the exam room, you must document that you asked the patient questions, did a thorough exam, and spent a specified amount of time at it. Of course that assumes that there is a direct correlation between the amount of time you spent with the patient and the quality of care. Which isn’t always the case. One sentence merely stating that you are a well-trained professional and did a thorough job doesn’t seem to be good enough. It works for the plumber and the electrician. But again, it’s that trust thing.

Of course there are the licensing and certification organizations that have a legitimate interest in the quality of your work. Because having an observer following you around for a day or two is impractical (which I still think is a good idea), you need to include evidence in your chart that you practice the standard of care by following accepted screening measures and treating according to standard guidelines.

And finally, while we are talking about trust, there is the whole risk management thing – maybe the most potent inflater of medical records. The lawyer-promoted myth “if you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen” encourages doctors to use voluminous verbiage merely to give your lawyer ammunition when you find yourself in a he-said/she-said situation.

Of course all of this needs to be carefully worded because the patient now has and deserves the right to review his or her medical records. And this might be the only good news. AI can be taught to create a medical record that is complete and more easily read and digested by the patient. This could make the records even more voluminous and as more patients become familiar with their own health records they may begin to demand that they become more concise and actually reflect what went on in the visit.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

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

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

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

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

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

In the dawn of artificial intelligence’s potential to inform clinical practice, the importance of understanding the intent and interpretation of prediction tools is vital. In medicine, informed decision-making promotes patient autonomy and can lead to improved patient satisfaction and engagement in their own care.

Prediction models can assist clinicians in providing comprehensive antenatal counseling that promotes discussion of potential risks and outcomes to help patients understand the implications of different management options. This shared understanding enables patients to make informed choices about their care, reducing anxiety and increasing confidence in medical decision-making.

Tufts University

In obstetric clinical practice, prediction tools have been created to assess risk of primary cesarean delivery in gestational diabetes,¹ cesarean delivery in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,² and failed induction of labor in nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix.³ By assessing a patient’s risk profile, clinicians can identify high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring, early interventions, or specialized care. This allows for more timely interventions to optimize maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Other prediction tools are created to better elucidate to patients their individual risk of an outcome that may be modifiable, aiding physician counseling on mitigating factors to improve overall results. A relevant example is the American Diabetes Association’s risk of type 2 diabetes calculator used for counseling patients on risk reduction. This model includes both preexisting (ethnicity, family history, age, sex assigned at birth) and modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hypertension, physical activity) to predict risk of type 2 diabetes and is widely used in clinical practice to encourage integration of lifestyle changes to decrease risk.⁴ This model highlights the utility of prediction tools in counseling, providing quantitative data to clinicians to discuss a patient’s individual risk and how to mitigate that risk.

While predictive models clearly have many advantages and potential to improve personalized medicine, concerns have been raised that their interpretation and application can sometimes have unintended consequences as the complexity of these models can lead to variation in understanding among clinicians that impact decision-making. Different clinicians may assign different levels of importance to the predicted risks, resulting in differences in treatment plans and interventions. This variability can lead to disparities in care and outcomes, as patients with similar risk profiles may receive different management approaches based on the interpreting clinician.

Providers may either overly rely on prediction models or completely disregard them, depending on their level of trust or skepticism. Overreliance on prediction models may lead to the neglect of important clinical information or intuition, while disregarding the models may result in missed opportunities for early intervention or appropriate risk stratification. Achieving a balance between clinical judgment and the use of prediction models is crucial for optimal decision-making.

An example of how misinterpretation of the role of prediction tools in patient counseling can have far reaching consequences is the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator where race and ethnicity naturalized racial differences and likely contributed to cesarean overuse in Black pregnant people as non-White race was associated with a decreased chance of successful VBAC. Although the authors of the study that created the VBAC calculator intended it to be used as an adjunct to counseling, institutions and providers used low calculator scores to discourage or prohibit pregnant people from attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This highlighted the importance of contextualizing the intent of prediction models within the broader clinical setting and individual patient circumstances and preferences.

This gap between intent and interpretation and subsequent application is influenced by individual clinician experience, training, personal biases, and subjective judgment. These subjective elements can introduce inconsistencies and variability in the utilization of prediction tools, leading to potential discrepancies in patient care. Inadequate understanding of prediction models and their statistical concepts can contribute to misinterpretation. It is this bias that prevents prediction models from serving their true purpose: to inform clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Clinicians may struggle with concepts such as predictive accuracy, overfitting, calibration, and external validation. Educational initiatives and enhanced training in statistical literacy can empower clinicians to better comprehend and apply prediction models in their practice. Researchers should make it clear that models should not be used in isolation, but rather integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Understanding the limitations of prediction models and incorporating additional clinical information is essential.

Prediction models in obstetrics should undergo continuous evaluation and improvement to enhance their reliability and applicability. Regular updates, external validation, and recalibration are necessary to account for evolving clinical practices, changes in patient populations, and emerging evidence. Engaging clinicians in the evaluation process can foster ownership and promote a sense of trust in the models.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence improve the accuracy of prediction models, there is potential to revolutionize obstetric care by enabling more accurate individualized risk assessment and decision-making. Machine learning has the potential to significantly enhance prediction models in obstetrics by leveraging complex algorithms and advanced computational techniques. However, the unpredictable nature of clinician interpretation poses challenges to the effective utilization of these models.

By emphasizing communication, collaboration, education, and continuous evaluation, we can bridge the gap between prediction models and clinician interpretation that optimizes their use. This concerted effort will ultimately lead to improved patient care, enhanced clinical outcomes, and a more harmonious integration of these tools into obstetric practice.

Dr. Ramos is assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine and associate principal investigator at the Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts University and Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

References

1. Ramos SZ et al. Predicting primary cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 7;S0002-9378(23)00371-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.002.

2. Beninati MJ et al. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):402-410. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003938.

3. Levine LD et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):254.e1-254.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603.

4. American Diabetes Association. Our 60-Second Type 2 Diabetes Risk Test.

In the dawn of artificial intelligence’s potential to inform clinical practice, the importance of understanding the intent and interpretation of prediction tools is vital. In medicine, informed decision-making promotes patient autonomy and can lead to improved patient satisfaction and engagement in their own care.

Prediction models can assist clinicians in providing comprehensive antenatal counseling that promotes discussion of potential risks and outcomes to help patients understand the implications of different management options. This shared understanding enables patients to make informed choices about their care, reducing anxiety and increasing confidence in medical decision-making.

Tufts University

In obstetric clinical practice, prediction tools have been created to assess risk of primary cesarean delivery in gestational diabetes,¹ cesarean delivery in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,² and failed induction of labor in nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix.³ By assessing a patient’s risk profile, clinicians can identify high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring, early interventions, or specialized care. This allows for more timely interventions to optimize maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Other prediction tools are created to better elucidate to patients their individual risk of an outcome that may be modifiable, aiding physician counseling on mitigating factors to improve overall results. A relevant example is the American Diabetes Association’s risk of type 2 diabetes calculator used for counseling patients on risk reduction. This model includes both preexisting (ethnicity, family history, age, sex assigned at birth) and modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hypertension, physical activity) to predict risk of type 2 diabetes and is widely used in clinical practice to encourage integration of lifestyle changes to decrease risk.⁴ This model highlights the utility of prediction tools in counseling, providing quantitative data to clinicians to discuss a patient’s individual risk and how to mitigate that risk.

While predictive models clearly have many advantages and potential to improve personalized medicine, concerns have been raised that their interpretation and application can sometimes have unintended consequences as the complexity of these models can lead to variation in understanding among clinicians that impact decision-making. Different clinicians may assign different levels of importance to the predicted risks, resulting in differences in treatment plans and interventions. This variability can lead to disparities in care and outcomes, as patients with similar risk profiles may receive different management approaches based on the interpreting clinician.

Providers may either overly rely on prediction models or completely disregard them, depending on their level of trust or skepticism. Overreliance on prediction models may lead to the neglect of important clinical information or intuition, while disregarding the models may result in missed opportunities for early intervention or appropriate risk stratification. Achieving a balance between clinical judgment and the use of prediction models is crucial for optimal decision-making.

An example of how misinterpretation of the role of prediction tools in patient counseling can have far reaching consequences is the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator where race and ethnicity naturalized racial differences and likely contributed to cesarean overuse in Black pregnant people as non-White race was associated with a decreased chance of successful VBAC. Although the authors of the study that created the VBAC calculator intended it to be used as an adjunct to counseling, institutions and providers used low calculator scores to discourage or prohibit pregnant people from attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This highlighted the importance of contextualizing the intent of prediction models within the broader clinical setting and individual patient circumstances and preferences.

This gap between intent and interpretation and subsequent application is influenced by individual clinician experience, training, personal biases, and subjective judgment. These subjective elements can introduce inconsistencies and variability in the utilization of prediction tools, leading to potential discrepancies in patient care. Inadequate understanding of prediction models and their statistical concepts can contribute to misinterpretation. It is this bias that prevents prediction models from serving their true purpose: to inform clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Clinicians may struggle with concepts such as predictive accuracy, overfitting, calibration, and external validation. Educational initiatives and enhanced training in statistical literacy can empower clinicians to better comprehend and apply prediction models in their practice. Researchers should make it clear that models should not be used in isolation, but rather integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Understanding the limitations of prediction models and incorporating additional clinical information is essential.

Prediction models in obstetrics should undergo continuous evaluation and improvement to enhance their reliability and applicability. Regular updates, external validation, and recalibration are necessary to account for evolving clinical practices, changes in patient populations, and emerging evidence. Engaging clinicians in the evaluation process can foster ownership and promote a sense of trust in the models.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence improve the accuracy of prediction models, there is potential to revolutionize obstetric care by enabling more accurate individualized risk assessment and decision-making. Machine learning has the potential to significantly enhance prediction models in obstetrics by leveraging complex algorithms and advanced computational techniques. However, the unpredictable nature of clinician interpretation poses challenges to the effective utilization of these models.

By emphasizing communication, collaboration, education, and continuous evaluation, we can bridge the gap between prediction models and clinician interpretation that optimizes their use. This concerted effort will ultimately lead to improved patient care, enhanced clinical outcomes, and a more harmonious integration of these tools into obstetric practice.

Dr. Ramos is assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine and associate principal investigator at the Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts University and Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

References

1. Ramos SZ et al. Predicting primary cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 7;S0002-9378(23)00371-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.002.

2. Beninati MJ et al. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):402-410. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003938.

3. Levine LD et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):254.e1-254.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603.

4. American Diabetes Association. Our 60-Second Type 2 Diabetes Risk Test.

In the dawn of artificial intelligence’s potential to inform clinical practice, the importance of understanding the intent and interpretation of prediction tools is vital. In medicine, informed decision-making promotes patient autonomy and can lead to improved patient satisfaction and engagement in their own care.

Prediction models can assist clinicians in providing comprehensive antenatal counseling that promotes discussion of potential risks and outcomes to help patients understand the implications of different management options. This shared understanding enables patients to make informed choices about their care, reducing anxiety and increasing confidence in medical decision-making.

Tufts University

In obstetric clinical practice, prediction tools have been created to assess risk of primary cesarean delivery in gestational diabetes,¹ cesarean delivery in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,² and failed induction of labor in nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix.³ By assessing a patient’s risk profile, clinicians can identify high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring, early interventions, or specialized care. This allows for more timely interventions to optimize maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Other prediction tools are created to better elucidate to patients their individual risk of an outcome that may be modifiable, aiding physician counseling on mitigating factors to improve overall results. A relevant example is the American Diabetes Association’s risk of type 2 diabetes calculator used for counseling patients on risk reduction. This model includes both preexisting (ethnicity, family history, age, sex assigned at birth) and modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hypertension, physical activity) to predict risk of type 2 diabetes and is widely used in clinical practice to encourage integration of lifestyle changes to decrease risk.⁴ This model highlights the utility of prediction tools in counseling, providing quantitative data to clinicians to discuss a patient’s individual risk and how to mitigate that risk.

While predictive models clearly have many advantages and potential to improve personalized medicine, concerns have been raised that their interpretation and application can sometimes have unintended consequences as the complexity of these models can lead to variation in understanding among clinicians that impact decision-making. Different clinicians may assign different levels of importance to the predicted risks, resulting in differences in treatment plans and interventions. This variability can lead to disparities in care and outcomes, as patients with similar risk profiles may receive different management approaches based on the interpreting clinician.

Providers may either overly rely on prediction models or completely disregard them, depending on their level of trust or skepticism. Overreliance on prediction models may lead to the neglect of important clinical information or intuition, while disregarding the models may result in missed opportunities for early intervention or appropriate risk stratification. Achieving a balance between clinical judgment and the use of prediction models is crucial for optimal decision-making.

An example of how misinterpretation of the role of prediction tools in patient counseling can have far reaching consequences is the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator where race and ethnicity naturalized racial differences and likely contributed to cesarean overuse in Black pregnant people as non-White race was associated with a decreased chance of successful VBAC. Although the authors of the study that created the VBAC calculator intended it to be used as an adjunct to counseling, institutions and providers used low calculator scores to discourage or prohibit pregnant people from attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This highlighted the importance of contextualizing the intent of prediction models within the broader clinical setting and individual patient circumstances and preferences.

This gap between intent and interpretation and subsequent application is influenced by individual clinician experience, training, personal biases, and subjective judgment. These subjective elements can introduce inconsistencies and variability in the utilization of prediction tools, leading to potential discrepancies in patient care. Inadequate understanding of prediction models and their statistical concepts can contribute to misinterpretation. It is this bias that prevents prediction models from serving their true purpose: to inform clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Clinicians may struggle with concepts such as predictive accuracy, overfitting, calibration, and external validation. Educational initiatives and enhanced training in statistical literacy can empower clinicians to better comprehend and apply prediction models in their practice. Researchers should make it clear that models should not be used in isolation, but rather integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Understanding the limitations of prediction models and incorporating additional clinical information is essential.

Prediction models in obstetrics should undergo continuous evaluation and improvement to enhance their reliability and applicability. Regular updates, external validation, and recalibration are necessary to account for evolving clinical practices, changes in patient populations, and emerging evidence. Engaging clinicians in the evaluation process can foster ownership and promote a sense of trust in the models.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence improve the accuracy of prediction models, there is potential to revolutionize obstetric care by enabling more accurate individualized risk assessment and decision-making. Machine learning has the potential to significantly enhance prediction models in obstetrics by leveraging complex algorithms and advanced computational techniques. However, the unpredictable nature of clinician interpretation poses challenges to the effective utilization of these models.

By emphasizing communication, collaboration, education, and continuous evaluation, we can bridge the gap between prediction models and clinician interpretation that optimizes their use. This concerted effort will ultimately lead to improved patient care, enhanced clinical outcomes, and a more harmonious integration of these tools into obstetric practice.

Dr. Ramos is assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine and associate principal investigator at the Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts University and Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

References

1. Ramos SZ et al. Predicting primary cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 7;S0002-9378(23)00371-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.002.

2. Beninati MJ et al. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):402-410. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003938.

3. Levine LD et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):254.e1-254.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603.

4. American Diabetes Association. Our 60-Second Type 2 Diabetes Risk Test.

Nail surgical procedures including biopsies, correction of onychocryptosis and other deformities, and excision of tumors are essential for diagnosing and treating nail disorders. Nail surgery often is perceived by dermatologists as a difficult-to-perform, high-risk procedure associated with patient anxiety, pain, and permanent scarring, which may limit implementation. Misconceptions about nail surgical techniques, aftercare, and patient outcomes are prevalent, and a paucity of nail surgery randomized clinical trials hinder formulation of standardized guidelines.¹ In a survey-based study of 95 dermatology residency programs (240 total respondents), 58% of residents said they performed 10 or fewer nail procedures, 10% performed more than 10 procedures, 25% only observed nail procedures, 4% were exposed by lecture only, and 1% had no exposure; 30% said they felt incompetent performing nail biopsies.² In a retrospective study of nail biopsies performed from 2012 to 2017 in the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, only 0.28% and 1.01% of all general dermatologists and Mohs surgeons, respectively, performed nail biopsies annually.³ A minimally invasive nail surgery technique is essential to alleviating dermatologist and patient apprehension, which may lead to greater adoption and improved outcomes.

Reduce Patient Anxiety During Nail Surgery

The prospect of undergoing nail surgery can be psychologically distressing to patients because the nail unit is highly sensitive, intraoperative and postoperative pain are common concerns, patient education materials generally are scarce and inaccurate,⁴ and procedures are performed under local anesthesia with the patient fully awake. In a prospective study of 48 patients undergoing nail surgery, the median preoperative Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory level was 42.00 (IQR, 6.50).⁵ Patient distress may be minimized by providing verbal and written educational materials, discussing expectations, and preoperatively using fast-acting benzodiazepines when necessary.⁶ Utilizing a sleep mask,⁷ stress ball,⁸ music,⁹ and/or virtual reality¹⁰ also may reduce patient anxiety during nail surgery.

Use Proper Anesthetic Techniques

Proper anesthetic technique is crucial to achieve the optimal patient experience during nail surgery. With a wing block, the anesthetic is injected into 3 points: (1) the proximal nail fold, (2) the medial/lateral fold, and (3) the hyponychium. The wing block is the preferred technique by many nail surgeons because the second and third injections are given in skin that is already anesthetized, reducing patient discomfort to a single pinprick¹¹; additionally, there is lower postoperative paresthesia risk with the wing block compared with other digital nerve blocks.¹² Ropivacaine, a fast-acting and long-acting anesthetic, is preferred over lidocaine to minimize immediate postoperative pain. Buffering the anesthetic solution to physiologic pH and slow infiltration can reduce pain during infiltration.¹² Distraction¹² provided by ethyl chloride refrigerant spray, an air-cooling device,¹³ or vibration also can reduce pain during anesthesia.

Punch Biopsy and Excision Tips

The punch biopsy is a minimally invasive method for diagnosing various neoplastic and inflammatory nail unit conditions, except for pigmented lesions.¹² For polydactylous nail conditions requiring biopsy, a digit on the nondominant hand should be selected if possible. The punch is applied directly to the nail plate and twisted with downward pressure until the bone is reached, with the instrument withdrawn slowly to prevent surrounding nail plate detachment. Hemostasis is easily achieved with direct pressure and/or use of epinephrine or ropivacaine during anesthesia, and a digital tourniquet generally is not required. Applying microporous polysaccharide hemospheres powder¹⁴ or kaolin-impregnated gauze¹⁵ with direct pressure is helpful in managing continued bleeding following nail surgery. Punching through the proximal nail matrix should be avoided to prevent permanent onychodystrophy.

A tangential matrix shave biopsy requires a more practiced technique and is preferred for sampling longitudinal melanonychia. A partial proximal nail plate avulsion adequately exposes the origin of pigment and avoids complete avulsion, which may cause more onychodystrophy.¹⁶ For broad erythronychia, a total nail avulsion may be necessary. For narrow, well-defined erythronychia, a less-invasive approach such as trap-door avulsion, longitudinal nail strip, or lateral nail plate curl, depending on the etiology, often is sufficient. Tissue excision should be tailored to the specific etiology, with localized excision sufficient for glomus tumors; onychopapillomas require tangential excision of the distal matrix, entire nail bed, and hyperkeratotic papule at the hyponychium. Pushing the cuticle with an elevator/spatula instead of making 2 tangential incisions on the proximal nail fold has been suggested to decrease postoperative paronychia risk.¹² A Teflon-coated blade is used to achieve a smooth cut with minimal drag, enabling collection of specimens less than 1 mm thick, which provides sufficient nail matrix epithelium and dermis for histologic examination.¹⁶ After obtaining the specimen, the avulsed nail plate may be sutured back to the nail bed using a rapidly absorbable suture such as polyglactin 910, serving as a temporary biological dressing and splint for the nail unit during healing.¹² In a retrospective study of 30 patients with longitudinal melanonychia undergoing tangential matrix excision, 27% (8/30) developed postoperative onychodystrophy.¹⁷ Although this technique carries relatively lower risk of permanent onychodystrophy compared to other methods, it still is important to acknowledge during the preoperative consent process.¹²

The lateral longitudinal excision is a valuable technique for diagnosing nail unit inflammatory conditions. Classically, a longitudinal sample including the proximal nail fold, complete matrix, lateral plate, lateral nail fold, hyponychium, and distal tip skin is obtained, with a 10% narrowing of the nail plate expected. If the lateral horn of the nail matrix is missed, permanent lateral malalignment and spicule formation are potential risks. To minimize narrowing of the nail plate and postoperative paronychia, a longitudinal nail strip—where the proximal nail fold and matrix are left intact—is an alternative technique.¹⁸

Pain Management Approaches

Appropriate postoperative pain management is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes. In a prospective study of 20 patients undergoing nail biopsy, the mean pain score 6 to 12 hours postprocedure was 5.7 on a scale of 0 to 10. Patients with presurgery pain vs those without experienced significantly higher pain levels both during anesthesia and after surgery (both P<.05).¹⁹ Therefore, a personalized approach to pain management based on presence of presurgical pain is warranted. In a randomized clinical trial of 16 patients anesthetized with lidocaine 2% and intraoperative infiltration with a combination of ropivacaine 0.5 mL and triamcinolone (10 mg/mL [0.5 mL]) vs lidocaine 2% alone, the intraoperative mixture reduced postoperative pain (mean pain score, 2 of 10 at 48 hours postprocedure vs 7.88 of 10 in the control group [P<.001]).²⁰

A Cochrane review of 4 unpublished dental and orthopedic surgery studies showed that gabapentin is superior to placebo in the treatment of acute postoperative pain. Therefore, a single dose of gabapentin (250 mg) may be considered in patients at risk for high postoperative pain.²¹ In a randomized double-blind trial of 210 Mohs micrographic surgery patients, those receiving acetaminophen and ibuprofen reported lower pain scores at 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours postprocedure compared with patients taking acetaminophen and codeine or acetaminophen alone.²² However, the role of opioids in pain management following nail surgery has not been adequately studied.

Wound Care

An efficient dressing protects the surgical wound, facilitates healing, and provides comfort. In our experience, an initial layer of petrolatum-impregnated gauze followed by a pressure-padded bandage consisting of folded dry gauze secured in place with longitudinally applied tape to avoid a tourniquet effect is effective for nail surgical wounds. As the last step, self-adherent elastic wrap is applied around the digit and extended proximally to prevent a tourniquet effect.²³

Final Thoughts

Due to the intricate anatomy of the nail unit, nail surgeries are inherently more invasive than most dermatologic surgical procedures. It is crucial to adopt a minimally invasive approach to reduce tissue damage and potential complications in both the short-term and long-term. Adopting this approach may substantially improve patient outcomes and enhance diagnostic and treatment efficacy.

Nail surgical procedures including biopsies, correction of onychocryptosis and other deformities, and excision of tumors are essential for diagnosing and treating nail disorders. Nail surgery often is perceived by dermatologists as a difficult-to-perform, high-risk procedure associated with patient anxiety, pain, and permanent scarring, which may limit implementation. Misconceptions about nail surgical techniques, aftercare, and patient outcomes are prevalent, and a paucity of nail surgery randomized clinical trials hinder formulation of standardized guidelines.¹ In a survey-based study of 95 dermatology residency programs (240 total respondents), 58% of residents said they performed 10 or fewer nail procedures, 10% performed more than 10 procedures, 25% only observed nail procedures, 4% were exposed by lecture only, and 1% had no exposure; 30% said they felt incompetent performing nail biopsies.² In a retrospective study of nail biopsies performed from 2012 to 2017 in the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, only 0.28% and 1.01% of all general dermatologists and Mohs surgeons, respectively, performed nail biopsies annually.³ A minimally invasive nail surgery technique is essential to alleviating dermatologist and patient apprehension, which may lead to greater adoption and improved outcomes.

Reduce Patient Anxiety During Nail Surgery

The prospect of undergoing nail surgery can be psychologically distressing to patients because the nail unit is highly sensitive, intraoperative and postoperative pain are common concerns, patient education materials generally are scarce and inaccurate,⁴ and procedures are performed under local anesthesia with the patient fully awake. In a prospective study of 48 patients undergoing nail surgery, the median preoperative Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory level was 42.00 (IQR, 6.50).⁵ Patient distress may be minimized by providing verbal and written educational materials, discussing expectations, and preoperatively using fast-acting benzodiazepines when necessary.⁶ Utilizing a sleep mask,⁷ stress ball,⁸ music,⁹ and/or virtual reality¹⁰ also may reduce patient anxiety during nail surgery.

Use Proper Anesthetic Techniques

Proper anesthetic technique is crucial to achieve the optimal patient experience during nail surgery. With a wing block, the anesthetic is injected into 3 points: (1) the proximal nail fold, (2) the medial/lateral fold, and (3) the hyponychium. The wing block is the preferred technique by many nail surgeons because the second and third injections are given in skin that is already anesthetized, reducing patient discomfort to a single pinprick¹¹; additionally, there is lower postoperative paresthesia risk with the wing block compared with other digital nerve blocks.¹² Ropivacaine, a fast-acting and long-acting anesthetic, is preferred over lidocaine to minimize immediate postoperative pain. Buffering the anesthetic solution to physiologic pH and slow infiltration can reduce pain during infiltration.¹² Distraction¹² provided by ethyl chloride refrigerant spray, an air-cooling device,¹³ or vibration also can reduce pain during anesthesia.

Punch Biopsy and Excision Tips

The punch biopsy is a minimally invasive method for diagnosing various neoplastic and inflammatory nail unit conditions, except for pigmented lesions.¹² For polydactylous nail conditions requiring biopsy, a digit on the nondominant hand should be selected if possible. The punch is applied directly to the nail plate and twisted with downward pressure until the bone is reached, with the instrument withdrawn slowly to prevent surrounding nail plate detachment. Hemostasis is easily achieved with direct pressure and/or use of epinephrine or ropivacaine during anesthesia, and a digital tourniquet generally is not required. Applying microporous polysaccharide hemospheres powder¹⁴ or kaolin-impregnated gauze¹⁵ with direct pressure is helpful in managing continued bleeding following nail surgery. Punching through the proximal nail matrix should be avoided to prevent permanent onychodystrophy.

A tangential matrix shave biopsy requires a more practiced technique and is preferred for sampling longitudinal melanonychia. A partial proximal nail plate avulsion adequately exposes the origin of pigment and avoids complete avulsion, which may cause more onychodystrophy.¹⁶ For broad erythronychia, a total nail avulsion may be necessary. For narrow, well-defined erythronychia, a less-invasive approach such as trap-door avulsion, longitudinal nail strip, or lateral nail plate curl, depending on the etiology, often is sufficient. Tissue excision should be tailored to the specific etiology, with localized excision sufficient for glomus tumors; onychopapillomas require tangential excision of the distal matrix, entire nail bed, and hyperkeratotic papule at the hyponychium. Pushing the cuticle with an elevator/spatula instead of making 2 tangential incisions on the proximal nail fold has been suggested to decrease postoperative paronychia risk.¹² A Teflon-coated blade is used to achieve a smooth cut with minimal drag, enabling collection of specimens less than 1 mm thick, which provides sufficient nail matrix epithelium and dermis for histologic examination.¹⁶ After obtaining the specimen, the avulsed nail plate may be sutured back to the nail bed using a rapidly absorbable suture such as polyglactin 910, serving as a temporary biological dressing and splint for the nail unit during healing.¹² In a retrospective study of 30 patients with longitudinal melanonychia undergoing tangential matrix excision, 27% (8/30) developed postoperative onychodystrophy.¹⁷ Although this technique carries relatively lower risk of permanent onychodystrophy compared to other methods, it still is important to acknowledge during the preoperative consent process.¹²

The lateral longitudinal excision is a valuable technique for diagnosing nail unit inflammatory conditions. Classically, a longitudinal sample including the proximal nail fold, complete matrix, lateral plate, lateral nail fold, hyponychium, and distal tip skin is obtained, with a 10% narrowing of the nail plate expected. If the lateral horn of the nail matrix is missed, permanent lateral malalignment and spicule formation are potential risks. To minimize narrowing of the nail plate and postoperative paronychia, a longitudinal nail strip—where the proximal nail fold and matrix are left intact—is an alternative technique.¹⁸

Pain Management Approaches

Appropriate postoperative pain management is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes. In a prospective study of 20 patients undergoing nail biopsy, the mean pain score 6 to 12 hours postprocedure was 5.7 on a scale of 0 to 10. Patients with presurgery pain vs those without experienced significantly higher pain levels both during anesthesia and after surgery (both P<.05).¹⁹ Therefore, a personalized approach to pain management based on presence of presurgical pain is warranted. In a randomized clinical trial of 16 patients anesthetized with lidocaine 2% and intraoperative infiltration with a combination of ropivacaine 0.5 mL and triamcinolone (10 mg/mL [0.5 mL]) vs lidocaine 2% alone, the intraoperative mixture reduced postoperative pain (mean pain score, 2 of 10 at 48 hours postprocedure vs 7.88 of 10 in the control group [P<.001]).²⁰

A Cochrane review of 4 unpublished dental and orthopedic surgery studies showed that gabapentin is superior to placebo in the treatment of acute postoperative pain. Therefore, a single dose of gabapentin (250 mg) may be considered in patients at risk for high postoperative pain.²¹ In a randomized double-blind trial of 210 Mohs micrographic surgery patients, those receiving acetaminophen and ibuprofen reported lower pain scores at 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours postprocedure compared with patients taking acetaminophen and codeine or acetaminophen alone.²² However, the role of opioids in pain management following nail surgery has not been adequately studied.

Wound Care

An efficient dressing protects the surgical wound, facilitates healing, and provides comfort. In our experience, an initial layer of petrolatum-impregnated gauze followed by a pressure-padded bandage consisting of folded dry gauze secured in place with longitudinally applied tape to avoid a tourniquet effect is effective for nail surgical wounds. As the last step, self-adherent elastic wrap is applied around the digit and extended proximally to prevent a tourniquet effect.²³

Final Thoughts

Due to the intricate anatomy of the nail unit, nail surgeries are inherently more invasive than most dermatologic surgical procedures. It is crucial to adopt a minimally invasive approach to reduce tissue damage and potential complications in both the short-term and long-term. Adopting this approach may substantially improve patient outcomes and enhance diagnostic and treatment efficacy.

Nail surgical procedures including biopsies, correction of onychocryptosis and other deformities, and excision of tumors are essential for diagnosing and treating nail disorders. Nail surgery often is perceived by dermatologists as a difficult-to-perform, high-risk procedure associated with patient anxiety, pain, and permanent scarring, which may limit implementation. Misconceptions about nail surgical techniques, aftercare, and patient outcomes are prevalent, and a paucity of nail surgery randomized clinical trials hinder formulation of standardized guidelines.¹ In a survey-based study of 95 dermatology residency programs (240 total respondents), 58% of residents said they performed 10 or fewer nail procedures, 10% performed more than 10 procedures, 25% only observed nail procedures, 4% were exposed by lecture only, and 1% had no exposure; 30% said they felt incompetent performing nail biopsies.² In a retrospective study of nail biopsies performed from 2012 to 2017 in the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, only 0.28% and 1.01% of all general dermatologists and Mohs surgeons, respectively, performed nail biopsies annually.³ A minimally invasive nail surgery technique is essential to alleviating dermatologist and patient apprehension, which may lead to greater adoption and improved outcomes.

Reduce Patient Anxiety During Nail Surgery

The prospect of undergoing nail surgery can be psychologically distressing to patients because the nail unit is highly sensitive, intraoperative and postoperative pain are common concerns, patient education materials generally are scarce and inaccurate,⁴ and procedures are performed under local anesthesia with the patient fully awake. In a prospective study of 48 patients undergoing nail surgery, the median preoperative Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory level was 42.00 (IQR, 6.50).⁵ Patient distress may be minimized by providing verbal and written educational materials, discussing expectations, and preoperatively using fast-acting benzodiazepines when necessary.⁶ Utilizing a sleep mask,⁷ stress ball,⁸ music,⁹ and/or virtual reality¹⁰ also may reduce patient anxiety during nail surgery.

Use Proper Anesthetic Techniques

Proper anesthetic technique is crucial to achieve the optimal patient experience during nail surgery. With a wing block, the anesthetic is injected into 3 points: (1) the proximal nail fold, (2) the medial/lateral fold, and (3) the hyponychium. The wing block is the preferred technique by many nail surgeons because the second and third injections are given in skin that is already anesthetized, reducing patient discomfort to a single pinprick¹¹; additionally, there is lower postoperative paresthesia risk with the wing block compared with other digital nerve blocks.¹² Ropivacaine, a fast-acting and long-acting anesthetic, is preferred over lidocaine to minimize immediate postoperative pain. Buffering the anesthetic solution to physiologic pH and slow infiltration can reduce pain during infiltration.¹² Distraction¹² provided by ethyl chloride refrigerant spray, an air-cooling device,¹³ or vibration also can reduce pain during anesthesia.

Punch Biopsy and Excision Tips

The punch biopsy is a minimally invasive method for diagnosing various neoplastic and inflammatory nail unit conditions, except for pigmented lesions.¹² For polydactylous nail conditions requiring biopsy, a digit on the nondominant hand should be selected if possible. The punch is applied directly to the nail plate and twisted with downward pressure until the bone is reached, with the instrument withdrawn slowly to prevent surrounding nail plate detachment. Hemostasis is easily achieved with direct pressure and/or use of epinephrine or ropivacaine during anesthesia, and a digital tourniquet generally is not required. Applying microporous polysaccharide hemospheres powder¹⁴ or kaolin-impregnated gauze¹⁵ with direct pressure is helpful in managing continued bleeding following nail surgery. Punching through the proximal nail matrix should be avoided to prevent permanent onychodystrophy.

A tangential matrix shave biopsy requires a more practiced technique and is preferred for sampling longitudinal melanonychia. A partial proximal nail plate avulsion adequately exposes the origin of pigment and avoids complete avulsion, which may cause more onychodystrophy.¹⁶ For broad erythronychia, a total nail avulsion may be necessary. For narrow, well-defined erythronychia, a less-invasive approach such as trap-door avulsion, longitudinal nail strip, or lateral nail plate curl, depending on the etiology, often is sufficient. Tissue excision should be tailored to the specific etiology, with localized excision sufficient for glomus tumors; onychopapillomas require tangential excision of the distal matrix, entire nail bed, and hyperkeratotic papule at the hyponychium. Pushing the cuticle with an elevator/spatula instead of making 2 tangential incisions on the proximal nail fold has been suggested to decrease postoperative paronychia risk.¹² A Teflon-coated blade is used to achieve a smooth cut with minimal drag, enabling collection of specimens less than 1 mm thick, which provides sufficient nail matrix epithelium and dermis for histologic examination.¹⁶ After obtaining the specimen, the avulsed nail plate may be sutured back to the nail bed using a rapidly absorbable suture such as polyglactin 910, serving as a temporary biological dressing and splint for the nail unit during healing.¹² In a retrospective study of 30 patients with longitudinal melanonychia undergoing tangential matrix excision, 27% (8/30) developed postoperative onychodystrophy.¹⁷ Although this technique carries relatively lower risk of permanent onychodystrophy compared to other methods, it still is important to acknowledge during the preoperative consent process.¹²

The lateral longitudinal excision is a valuable technique for diagnosing nail unit inflammatory conditions. Classically, a longitudinal sample including the proximal nail fold, complete matrix, lateral plate, lateral nail fold, hyponychium, and distal tip skin is obtained, with a 10% narrowing of the nail plate expected. If the lateral horn of the nail matrix is missed, permanent lateral malalignment and spicule formation are potential risks. To minimize narrowing of the nail plate and postoperative paronychia, a longitudinal nail strip—where the proximal nail fold and matrix are left intact—is an alternative technique.¹⁸

Pain Management Approaches

Appropriate postoperative pain management is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes. In a prospective study of 20 patients undergoing nail biopsy, the mean pain score 6 to 12 hours postprocedure was 5.7 on a scale of 0 to 10. Patients with presurgery pain vs those without experienced significantly higher pain levels both during anesthesia and after surgery (both P<.05).¹⁹ Therefore, a personalized approach to pain management based on presence of presurgical pain is warranted. In a randomized clinical trial of 16 patients anesthetized with lidocaine 2% and intraoperative infiltration with a combination of ropivacaine 0.5 mL and triamcinolone (10 mg/mL [0.5 mL]) vs lidocaine 2% alone, the intraoperative mixture reduced postoperative pain (mean pain score, 2 of 10 at 48 hours postprocedure vs 7.88 of 10 in the control group [P<.001]).²⁰

A Cochrane review of 4 unpublished dental and orthopedic surgery studies showed that gabapentin is superior to placebo in the treatment of acute postoperative pain. Therefore, a single dose of gabapentin (250 mg) may be considered in patients at risk for high postoperative pain.²¹ In a randomized double-blind trial of 210 Mohs micrographic surgery patients, those receiving acetaminophen and ibuprofen reported lower pain scores at 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours postprocedure compared with patients taking acetaminophen and codeine or acetaminophen alone.²² However, the role of opioids in pain management following nail surgery has not been adequately studied.

Wound Care

An efficient dressing protects the surgical wound, facilitates healing, and provides comfort. In our experience, an initial layer of petrolatum-impregnated gauze followed by a pressure-padded bandage consisting of folded dry gauze secured in place with longitudinally applied tape to avoid a tourniquet effect is effective for nail surgical wounds. As the last step, self-adherent elastic wrap is applied around the digit and extended proximally to prevent a tourniquet effect.²³

Final Thoughts

Due to the intricate anatomy of the nail unit, nail surgeries are inherently more invasive than most dermatologic surgical procedures. It is crucial to adopt a minimally invasive approach to reduce tissue damage and potential complications in both the short-term and long-term. Adopting this approach may substantially improve patient outcomes and enhance diagnostic and treatment efficacy.

Cultures for bacteria, varicella zoster virus, herpes simplex virus, and mpox virus were all negative. A biopsy revealed suprabasilar acantholysis with follicular involvement in association with blister formation and inflammation. Direct immunofluorescence was positive for suprabasilar IgG and C₃ deposition, consistent with pemphigus vulgaris (PV).

PV is an autoimmune bullous disease in which antibodies are directed against desmoglein 1 and 3 and less commonly, plakoglobin. There is likely a genetic predisposition. Medications that may induce pemphigus include penicillamine, nifedipine, or captopril.

Clinically, flaccid blistering lesions are present that may be cutaneous and/or mucosal. Bullae can progress to erosions and crusting, which then heal with pigment alteration but not scarring. The most commonly affected sites are the mouth, intertriginous areas, face, and neck. Mucosal lesions may involve the lips, esophagus, conjunctiva, and genitals.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

Cultures for bacteria, varicella zoster virus, herpes simplex virus, and mpox virus were all negative. A biopsy revealed suprabasilar acantholysis with follicular involvement in association with blister formation and inflammation. Direct immunofluorescence was positive for suprabasilar IgG and C₃ deposition, consistent with pemphigus vulgaris (PV).

PV is an autoimmune bullous disease in which antibodies are directed against desmoglein 1 and 3 and less commonly, plakoglobin. There is likely a genetic predisposition. Medications that may induce pemphigus include penicillamine, nifedipine, or captopril.

Clinically, flaccid blistering lesions are present that may be cutaneous and/or mucosal. Bullae can progress to erosions and crusting, which then heal with pigment alteration but not scarring. The most commonly affected sites are the mouth, intertriginous areas, face, and neck. Mucosal lesions may involve the lips, esophagus, conjunctiva, and genitals.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

Cultures for bacteria, varicella zoster virus, herpes simplex virus, and mpox virus were all negative. A biopsy revealed suprabasilar acantholysis with follicular involvement in association with blister formation and inflammation. Direct immunofluorescence was positive for suprabasilar IgG and C₃ deposition, consistent with pemphigus vulgaris (PV).

PV is an autoimmune bullous disease in which antibodies are directed against desmoglein 1 and 3 and less commonly, plakoglobin. There is likely a genetic predisposition. Medications that may induce pemphigus include penicillamine, nifedipine, or captopril.

Clinically, flaccid blistering lesions are present that may be cutaneous and/or mucosal. Bullae can progress to erosions and crusting, which then heal with pigment alteration but not scarring. The most commonly affected sites are the mouth, intertriginous areas, face, and neck. Mucosal lesions may involve the lips, esophagus, conjunctiva, and genitals.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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