MDedge Surgery

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Liver transplant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in carefully selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis; however, the overall survival and recurrence rate benefits did not reach statistical significance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method. 
• Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria. 
• Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy. 
• Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6). 
• The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group. 
• Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01). 
• Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12). 
• Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population. 

IN PRACTICE:

“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Liver transplant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in carefully selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis; however, the overall survival and recurrence rate benefits did not reach statistical significance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method. 
• Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria. 
• Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy. 
• Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6). 
• The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group. 
• Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01). 
• Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12). 
• Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population. 

IN PRACTICE:

“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Liver transplant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in carefully selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis; however, the overall survival and recurrence rate benefits did not reach statistical significance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method. 
• Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria. 
• Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy. 
• Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6). 
• The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group. 
• Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01). 
• Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12). 
• Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population. 

IN PRACTICE:

“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having an ostomy is a dreaded prospect for many patients with rectal cancer.

To defer, and potentially avoid, this life-altering surgery, the watch-and-wait approach has become increasingly common among patients with locally advanced disease who have a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

About 80% of these patients who have a complete clinical response — a perfectly healed scar where the tumor used to be and other favorable features — can forgo total mesorectal excision and preserve their rectum.

The success of watch-and-wait among complete responders has led some centers to offer the approach in patients with near-complete responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

But watch-and-wait for near-complete clinical responders “is very controversial,” Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), told this news organization.

“You sure as hell don’t want to miss a chance to cure a patient,” Dr. Venook said.

A near-complete clinical response essentially means there is no sign of the tumor 8 weeks after total neoadjuvant therapy, but the tumor bed hasn’t completely healed.

The goal of watch-and-wait in this scenario is to give near-complete response lesions time to become complete responses.

But there’s no clear way to predict which tumors will evolve into a clinical complete response.

Recent studies evaluating the conversion rate have reported that anywhere from 39% to about 90% of near-complete responders became complete responders. Some of the variation likely comes down to differences in the clinical stage of patients evaluated in each study as well as the limited number of patients who achieve a near-complete response overall.

Other concerns have emerged that waiting for near-complete responses to become complete leaves extra time for some tumors to metastasize and that tumor regrowth is much higher compared with complete responders.

A recent study found that 13% of near-complete responders who preserved their rectum on watch-and-wait developed distant metastases vs about 5% of long-term complete responders. The study also found that just over half of near-complete responders have tumor regrowth compared with about one in five complete responders.

But even with regrowth, “surgery is still curative,” explained Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD, a pioneer of watch-and-wait for rectal cancer.

And overall, around 50%-60% of patients with a near-complete response can avoid surgery and preserve their rectum.
 

Selecting Patients for Watch-and-Wait

The key to deciding which patients are right for watch-and-wait is to understand how a near-complete clinical response was defined in the OPRA trial, a landmark randomized trial led by Dr. Garcia-Aguilar that helped establish watch-and-wait as an option in rectal cancer.

OPRA defined a near-complete response as no visible tumor but, in the tumor bed, mild erythema, superficial ulceration, minor mucosal abnormality or small nodules, and an irregular mucosa. The criteria also included no palpable tumor with smooth induration or a minor mucosal abnormality on the digital rectal exam.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network mirrored the definition when, for the first time, it recommended watch-and-wait as an option for near-complete response in its 2023 rectal cancer guidelines. The group also added a few MRI requirements.

UCSF offers the watch-and-wait option to some patients with near-complete responses, but each decision is made on a case-by-case basis by a tumor board considering numerous measures of tumor aggressiveness.

Even then, “we have, in many cases, struggled to figure out what the right choices are,” Dr. Venook said.

For those chosen for watch-and-wait, Dr. Venook noted that UCSF has top-notch surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists who have the resources to follow patients closely.

For community practices without the resources of a major cancer center, watch-and-wait for near-complete response to rectal cancer “is really asking a lot,” Dr. Venook said.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, explained that after years of studying the issue, he is comfortable with watch-and-wait in near-complete responders as long as it’s done carefully and in patients who will comply with ongoing surveillance.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar explained that, after diagnosing a near-complete response 8 weeks following total neoadjuvant therapy, the patient needs to come back 6 weeks later. At that point, it’s time to assess whether that near-complete response is evolving into a complete response or not evolving into a complete response.

If it’s evolving into a complete response, surveillance continues about every 8 weeks, but if the tumor has stopped responding, “you take [the patient] to the operating room,” Dr. Garcia-Aguilar said.

As for the bigger safety concern — that near clinical complete response tumors will metastasize — Dr. Garcia-Aguilar’s opinion is that micrometastases are probably already there when the rectal cancer is first diagnosed and will manifest themselves “no matter what happens to the primary tumor.”

Because of that, he noted, “I don’t think the risk is very high” when surgery is delayed a few months to give near-complete response patients a chance to keep their rectum.

The way to answer the metastasis question is to do a randomized trial pitting surgery against watch-and-wait in patients with near-clinical complete response rectal cancer.

However, Dr. Garcia-Aguilar doesn’t think that trial will ever happen. Patients won’t allow themselves to be randomized to surgery once they find out they might be able to avoid a permanent ostomy, he said.

Dr. Venook had no disclosures. Dr. Garcia-Aguilar reported personal fees from Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Intuitive Surgical.
 

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

Having an ostomy is a dreaded prospect for many patients with rectal cancer.

To defer, and potentially avoid, this life-altering surgery, the watch-and-wait approach has become increasingly common among patients with locally advanced disease who have a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

About 80% of these patients who have a complete clinical response — a perfectly healed scar where the tumor used to be and other favorable features — can forgo total mesorectal excision and preserve their rectum.

The success of watch-and-wait among complete responders has led some centers to offer the approach in patients with near-complete responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

But watch-and-wait for near-complete clinical responders “is very controversial,” Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), told this news organization.

“You sure as hell don’t want to miss a chance to cure a patient,” Dr. Venook said.

A near-complete clinical response essentially means there is no sign of the tumor 8 weeks after total neoadjuvant therapy, but the tumor bed hasn’t completely healed.

The goal of watch-and-wait in this scenario is to give near-complete response lesions time to become complete responses.

But there’s no clear way to predict which tumors will evolve into a clinical complete response.

Recent studies evaluating the conversion rate have reported that anywhere from 39% to about 90% of near-complete responders became complete responders. Some of the variation likely comes down to differences in the clinical stage of patients evaluated in each study as well as the limited number of patients who achieve a near-complete response overall.

Other concerns have emerged that waiting for near-complete responses to become complete leaves extra time for some tumors to metastasize and that tumor regrowth is much higher compared with complete responders.

A recent study found that 13% of near-complete responders who preserved their rectum on watch-and-wait developed distant metastases vs about 5% of long-term complete responders. The study also found that just over half of near-complete responders have tumor regrowth compared with about one in five complete responders.

But even with regrowth, “surgery is still curative,” explained Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD, a pioneer of watch-and-wait for rectal cancer.

And overall, around 50%-60% of patients with a near-complete response can avoid surgery and preserve their rectum.
 

Selecting Patients for Watch-and-Wait

The key to deciding which patients are right for watch-and-wait is to understand how a near-complete clinical response was defined in the OPRA trial, a landmark randomized trial led by Dr. Garcia-Aguilar that helped establish watch-and-wait as an option in rectal cancer.

OPRA defined a near-complete response as no visible tumor but, in the tumor bed, mild erythema, superficial ulceration, minor mucosal abnormality or small nodules, and an irregular mucosa. The criteria also included no palpable tumor with smooth induration or a minor mucosal abnormality on the digital rectal exam.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network mirrored the definition when, for the first time, it recommended watch-and-wait as an option for near-complete response in its 2023 rectal cancer guidelines. The group also added a few MRI requirements.

UCSF offers the watch-and-wait option to some patients with near-complete responses, but each decision is made on a case-by-case basis by a tumor board considering numerous measures of tumor aggressiveness.

Even then, “we have, in many cases, struggled to figure out what the right choices are,” Dr. Venook said.

For those chosen for watch-and-wait, Dr. Venook noted that UCSF has top-notch surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists who have the resources to follow patients closely.

For community practices without the resources of a major cancer center, watch-and-wait for near-complete response to rectal cancer “is really asking a lot,” Dr. Venook said.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, explained that after years of studying the issue, he is comfortable with watch-and-wait in near-complete responders as long as it’s done carefully and in patients who will comply with ongoing surveillance.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar explained that, after diagnosing a near-complete response 8 weeks following total neoadjuvant therapy, the patient needs to come back 6 weeks later. At that point, it’s time to assess whether that near-complete response is evolving into a complete response or not evolving into a complete response.

If it’s evolving into a complete response, surveillance continues about every 8 weeks, but if the tumor has stopped responding, “you take [the patient] to the operating room,” Dr. Garcia-Aguilar said.

As for the bigger safety concern — that near clinical complete response tumors will metastasize — Dr. Garcia-Aguilar’s opinion is that micrometastases are probably already there when the rectal cancer is first diagnosed and will manifest themselves “no matter what happens to the primary tumor.”

Because of that, he noted, “I don’t think the risk is very high” when surgery is delayed a few months to give near-complete response patients a chance to keep their rectum.

The way to answer the metastasis question is to do a randomized trial pitting surgery against watch-and-wait in patients with near-clinical complete response rectal cancer.

However, Dr. Garcia-Aguilar doesn’t think that trial will ever happen. Patients won’t allow themselves to be randomized to surgery once they find out they might be able to avoid a permanent ostomy, he said.

Dr. Venook had no disclosures. Dr. Garcia-Aguilar reported personal fees from Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Intuitive Surgical.
 

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

Having an ostomy is a dreaded prospect for many patients with rectal cancer.

To defer, and potentially avoid, this life-altering surgery, the watch-and-wait approach has become increasingly common among patients with locally advanced disease who have a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

About 80% of these patients who have a complete clinical response — a perfectly healed scar where the tumor used to be and other favorable features — can forgo total mesorectal excision and preserve their rectum.

The success of watch-and-wait among complete responders has led some centers to offer the approach in patients with near-complete responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

But watch-and-wait for near-complete clinical responders “is very controversial,” Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), told this news organization.

“You sure as hell don’t want to miss a chance to cure a patient,” Dr. Venook said.

A near-complete clinical response essentially means there is no sign of the tumor 8 weeks after total neoadjuvant therapy, but the tumor bed hasn’t completely healed.

The goal of watch-and-wait in this scenario is to give near-complete response lesions time to become complete responses.

But there’s no clear way to predict which tumors will evolve into a clinical complete response.

Recent studies evaluating the conversion rate have reported that anywhere from 39% to about 90% of near-complete responders became complete responders. Some of the variation likely comes down to differences in the clinical stage of patients evaluated in each study as well as the limited number of patients who achieve a near-complete response overall.

Other concerns have emerged that waiting for near-complete responses to become complete leaves extra time for some tumors to metastasize and that tumor regrowth is much higher compared with complete responders.

A recent study found that 13% of near-complete responders who preserved their rectum on watch-and-wait developed distant metastases vs about 5% of long-term complete responders. The study also found that just over half of near-complete responders have tumor regrowth compared with about one in five complete responders.

But even with regrowth, “surgery is still curative,” explained Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD, a pioneer of watch-and-wait for rectal cancer.

And overall, around 50%-60% of patients with a near-complete response can avoid surgery and preserve their rectum.
 

Selecting Patients for Watch-and-Wait

The key to deciding which patients are right for watch-and-wait is to understand how a near-complete clinical response was defined in the OPRA trial, a landmark randomized trial led by Dr. Garcia-Aguilar that helped establish watch-and-wait as an option in rectal cancer.

OPRA defined a near-complete response as no visible tumor but, in the tumor bed, mild erythema, superficial ulceration, minor mucosal abnormality or small nodules, and an irregular mucosa. The criteria also included no palpable tumor with smooth induration or a minor mucosal abnormality on the digital rectal exam.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network mirrored the definition when, for the first time, it recommended watch-and-wait as an option for near-complete response in its 2023 rectal cancer guidelines. The group also added a few MRI requirements.

UCSF offers the watch-and-wait option to some patients with near-complete responses, but each decision is made on a case-by-case basis by a tumor board considering numerous measures of tumor aggressiveness.

Even then, “we have, in many cases, struggled to figure out what the right choices are,” Dr. Venook said.

For those chosen for watch-and-wait, Dr. Venook noted that UCSF has top-notch surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists who have the resources to follow patients closely.

For community practices without the resources of a major cancer center, watch-and-wait for near-complete response to rectal cancer “is really asking a lot,” Dr. Venook said.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, explained that after years of studying the issue, he is comfortable with watch-and-wait in near-complete responders as long as it’s done carefully and in patients who will comply with ongoing surveillance.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar explained that, after diagnosing a near-complete response 8 weeks following total neoadjuvant therapy, the patient needs to come back 6 weeks later. At that point, it’s time to assess whether that near-complete response is evolving into a complete response or not evolving into a complete response.

If it’s evolving into a complete response, surveillance continues about every 8 weeks, but if the tumor has stopped responding, “you take [the patient] to the operating room,” Dr. Garcia-Aguilar said.

As for the bigger safety concern — that near clinical complete response tumors will metastasize — Dr. Garcia-Aguilar’s opinion is that micrometastases are probably already there when the rectal cancer is first diagnosed and will manifest themselves “no matter what happens to the primary tumor.”

Because of that, he noted, “I don’t think the risk is very high” when surgery is delayed a few months to give near-complete response patients a chance to keep their rectum.

The way to answer the metastasis question is to do a randomized trial pitting surgery against watch-and-wait in patients with near-clinical complete response rectal cancer.

However, Dr. Garcia-Aguilar doesn’t think that trial will ever happen. Patients won’t allow themselves to be randomized to surgery once they find out they might be able to avoid a permanent ostomy, he said.

Dr. Venook had no disclosures. Dr. Garcia-Aguilar reported personal fees from Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Intuitive Surgical.
 

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

In the case of a hip fracture, operating on a patient with dementia can be a difficult decision to make. Indeed, surgery exposes patients with dementia to a higher mortality rate, more delirium and postoperative complications, and a greater loss of mobility than patients of the same age without cognitive impairments. For patients with dementia in institutional settings, survival is better for those who undergo surgery than for those who do not. But what about the prognosis of surgery vs no surgery for patients with dementia who live at home?

To answer this question, researchers in the United States conducted a cohort study using Medicare data. This retrospective study included patients aged 66 years and older with dementia who were living at home and not placed in institutions and who had a hip fracture between January 2017 and June 2018. Patients with incomplete observations, particularly regarding the location and type of residence (home/institution), were excluded from the analysis. Fractures were categorized as (i) fractures of the head and neck, (ii) pertrochanteric, (iii) subtrochanteric, and (iv) multiple/complex. The type and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of dementia were identified using the diagnostic code list in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.
 

Examining Mortality

The primary outcome was mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes included hospital delirium; the need for subsequent hospitalization (within 6 months) or home health services (within 10 days); and intensive care interventions such as dialysis, intubation, resuscitation maneuvers, mechanical ventilation, or the insertion of a feeding tube.

Postoperative medical facility admissions were distinguished according to whether there was a plan to return home. To compare the surgery and nonsurgery groups, an inverse propensity score analysis was conducted within subgroups determined by fracture type, comorbidities (using the Elixhauser score), the person or entity responsible for admission (ie, physician, clinic, hospital, etc.), dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid), place of residence (ie, urban or rural), race, and sex. Dementia severity was estimated using a frailty index on the basis of evaluation tests that were systematically collected in the Medicare database.
 

Results Favored Surgery

Among 56,209 patients with dementia who were admitted for a hip fracture (73.0% women; mean age, 86.4 ± 7.0 years), 33,142 (59.0%) underwent surgery and 23,067 (41.0%) did not. Among surgically treated patients, 73.3% had fractures of the head or neck of the femur, and 40.2% had moderate to severe dementia. The nonsurgically treated fractures were 78.5% pertrochanteric. Comorbidities were evenly distributed between the two groups.

At 180 days, mortality was 31.8% in the surgery group compared with 45.7% in the nonsurgery group, resulting in a significant reduction in the unadjusted relative risk (RR) for death in favor of surgery (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001). Among patients with mild dementia and a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, mortality at 180 days was 26.5% among surgical patients and 34.9% among nonsurgical patients (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001). After the investigators adjusted for risk according to propensity score, the benefit of surgery remained significant at 30, 90, and 180 days, regardless of dementia severity. There was no significant difference in mortality for other types of hip fractures between the surgery and nonsurgery groups, however.

The adjusted RR for in-hospital delirium was 1.23 (P = .008), which was significant for the surgery group, but only for those with moderate to severe dementia. There were also fewer permanent placements (P < .001) among the surgically treated patients, and fewer patients with mild dementia required nurse care at home. There was no difference in resuscitation maneuvers between surgery and nonsurgery patients, whether the dementia was mild or not. For patients with a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, there was no difference in the likelihood of rehabilitation admission within 180 days, whether they were operated on or not.
 

Ethical Considerations

This study can inform discussions among healthcare professionals, patients, and patients’ families about which goals to set and which strategy to choose. The main interest of this study lies in its comparison of outcomes between patients with dementia who were operated on and those who were not, rather than comparing patients with and without dementia. Among patients with dementia living at home with a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, those who underwent surgery had a lower risk for death than those who did not, regardless of the severity of dementia.

It is noteworthy that less than two thirds of patients with dementia underwent surgery, which contradicts recommendations for almost routine surgery for patients with dementia. This observation raises questions about respecting patient wishes and advance directives when known, possible detrimental delays in referrals, and legal-medical issues.

Furthermore, the treatment choices of American surgeons are clearly influenced by the type of hip fracture. Fractures of the head and neck of the femur are typically treated with prosthetic arthroplasty, which simplifies postoperative care, compared with osteosynthesis. The latter procedure is more often used for extra-articular hip fractures but entails higher risks. While survival is an apparently more easily achievable goal through surgery, ethical considerations about other treatment objectives such as pain control, functional recovery, and treatment adequacy cannot be overlooked. It is worth noting that the French National Authority for Health issued recommendations in 2018 regarding the care pathway for patients hospitalized for a hip fracture within an orthogeriatric organization.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Medical News professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the case of a hip fracture, operating on a patient with dementia can be a difficult decision to make. Indeed, surgery exposes patients with dementia to a higher mortality rate, more delirium and postoperative complications, and a greater loss of mobility than patients of the same age without cognitive impairments. For patients with dementia in institutional settings, survival is better for those who undergo surgery than for those who do not. But what about the prognosis of surgery vs no surgery for patients with dementia who live at home?

To answer this question, researchers in the United States conducted a cohort study using Medicare data. This retrospective study included patients aged 66 years and older with dementia who were living at home and not placed in institutions and who had a hip fracture between January 2017 and June 2018. Patients with incomplete observations, particularly regarding the location and type of residence (home/institution), were excluded from the analysis. Fractures were categorized as (i) fractures of the head and neck, (ii) pertrochanteric, (iii) subtrochanteric, and (iv) multiple/complex. The type and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of dementia were identified using the diagnostic code list in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.
 

Examining Mortality

The primary outcome was mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes included hospital delirium; the need for subsequent hospitalization (within 6 months) or home health services (within 10 days); and intensive care interventions such as dialysis, intubation, resuscitation maneuvers, mechanical ventilation, or the insertion of a feeding tube.

Postoperative medical facility admissions were distinguished according to whether there was a plan to return home. To compare the surgery and nonsurgery groups, an inverse propensity score analysis was conducted within subgroups determined by fracture type, comorbidities (using the Elixhauser score), the person or entity responsible for admission (ie, physician, clinic, hospital, etc.), dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid), place of residence (ie, urban or rural), race, and sex. Dementia severity was estimated using a frailty index on the basis of evaluation tests that were systematically collected in the Medicare database.
 

Results Favored Surgery

Among 56,209 patients with dementia who were admitted for a hip fracture (73.0% women; mean age, 86.4 ± 7.0 years), 33,142 (59.0%) underwent surgery and 23,067 (41.0%) did not. Among surgically treated patients, 73.3% had fractures of the head or neck of the femur, and 40.2% had moderate to severe dementia. The nonsurgically treated fractures were 78.5% pertrochanteric. Comorbidities were evenly distributed between the two groups.

At 180 days, mortality was 31.8% in the surgery group compared with 45.7% in the nonsurgery group, resulting in a significant reduction in the unadjusted relative risk (RR) for death in favor of surgery (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001). Among patients with mild dementia and a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, mortality at 180 days was 26.5% among surgical patients and 34.9% among nonsurgical patients (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001). After the investigators adjusted for risk according to propensity score, the benefit of surgery remained significant at 30, 90, and 180 days, regardless of dementia severity. There was no significant difference in mortality for other types of hip fractures between the surgery and nonsurgery groups, however.

The adjusted RR for in-hospital delirium was 1.23 (P = .008), which was significant for the surgery group, but only for those with moderate to severe dementia. There were also fewer permanent placements (P < .001) among the surgically treated patients, and fewer patients with mild dementia required nurse care at home. There was no difference in resuscitation maneuvers between surgery and nonsurgery patients, whether the dementia was mild or not. For patients with a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, there was no difference in the likelihood of rehabilitation admission within 180 days, whether they were operated on or not.
 

Ethical Considerations

This study can inform discussions among healthcare professionals, patients, and patients’ families about which goals to set and which strategy to choose. The main interest of this study lies in its comparison of outcomes between patients with dementia who were operated on and those who were not, rather than comparing patients with and without dementia. Among patients with dementia living at home with a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, those who underwent surgery had a lower risk for death than those who did not, regardless of the severity of dementia.

It is noteworthy that less than two thirds of patients with dementia underwent surgery, which contradicts recommendations for almost routine surgery for patients with dementia. This observation raises questions about respecting patient wishes and advance directives when known, possible detrimental delays in referrals, and legal-medical issues.

Furthermore, the treatment choices of American surgeons are clearly influenced by the type of hip fracture. Fractures of the head and neck of the femur are typically treated with prosthetic arthroplasty, which simplifies postoperative care, compared with osteosynthesis. The latter procedure is more often used for extra-articular hip fractures but entails higher risks. While survival is an apparently more easily achievable goal through surgery, ethical considerations about other treatment objectives such as pain control, functional recovery, and treatment adequacy cannot be overlooked. It is worth noting that the French National Authority for Health issued recommendations in 2018 regarding the care pathway for patients hospitalized for a hip fracture within an orthogeriatric organization.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Medical News professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the case of a hip fracture, operating on a patient with dementia can be a difficult decision to make. Indeed, surgery exposes patients with dementia to a higher mortality rate, more delirium and postoperative complications, and a greater loss of mobility than patients of the same age without cognitive impairments. For patients with dementia in institutional settings, survival is better for those who undergo surgery than for those who do not. But what about the prognosis of surgery vs no surgery for patients with dementia who live at home?

To answer this question, researchers in the United States conducted a cohort study using Medicare data. This retrospective study included patients aged 66 years and older with dementia who were living at home and not placed in institutions and who had a hip fracture between January 2017 and June 2018. Patients with incomplete observations, particularly regarding the location and type of residence (home/institution), were excluded from the analysis. Fractures were categorized as (i) fractures of the head and neck, (ii) pertrochanteric, (iii) subtrochanteric, and (iv) multiple/complex. The type and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of dementia were identified using the diagnostic code list in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.
 

Examining Mortality

The primary outcome was mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes included hospital delirium; the need for subsequent hospitalization (within 6 months) or home health services (within 10 days); and intensive care interventions such as dialysis, intubation, resuscitation maneuvers, mechanical ventilation, or the insertion of a feeding tube.

Postoperative medical facility admissions were distinguished according to whether there was a plan to return home. To compare the surgery and nonsurgery groups, an inverse propensity score analysis was conducted within subgroups determined by fracture type, comorbidities (using the Elixhauser score), the person or entity responsible for admission (ie, physician, clinic, hospital, etc.), dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid), place of residence (ie, urban or rural), race, and sex. Dementia severity was estimated using a frailty index on the basis of evaluation tests that were systematically collected in the Medicare database.
 

Results Favored Surgery

Among 56,209 patients with dementia who were admitted for a hip fracture (73.0% women; mean age, 86.4 ± 7.0 years), 33,142 (59.0%) underwent surgery and 23,067 (41.0%) did not. Among surgically treated patients, 73.3% had fractures of the head or neck of the femur, and 40.2% had moderate to severe dementia. The nonsurgically treated fractures were 78.5% pertrochanteric. Comorbidities were evenly distributed between the two groups.

At 180 days, mortality was 31.8% in the surgery group compared with 45.7% in the nonsurgery group, resulting in a significant reduction in the unadjusted relative risk (RR) for death in favor of surgery (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001). Among patients with mild dementia and a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, mortality at 180 days was 26.5% among surgical patients and 34.9% among nonsurgical patients (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001). After the investigators adjusted for risk according to propensity score, the benefit of surgery remained significant at 30, 90, and 180 days, regardless of dementia severity. There was no significant difference in mortality for other types of hip fractures between the surgery and nonsurgery groups, however.

The adjusted RR for in-hospital delirium was 1.23 (P = .008), which was significant for the surgery group, but only for those with moderate to severe dementia. There were also fewer permanent placements (P < .001) among the surgically treated patients, and fewer patients with mild dementia required nurse care at home. There was no difference in resuscitation maneuvers between surgery and nonsurgery patients, whether the dementia was mild or not. For patients with a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, there was no difference in the likelihood of rehabilitation admission within 180 days, whether they were operated on or not.
 

Ethical Considerations

This study can inform discussions among healthcare professionals, patients, and patients’ families about which goals to set and which strategy to choose. The main interest of this study lies in its comparison of outcomes between patients with dementia who were operated on and those who were not, rather than comparing patients with and without dementia. Among patients with dementia living at home with a fracture of the head or neck of the femur, those who underwent surgery had a lower risk for death than those who did not, regardless of the severity of dementia.

It is noteworthy that less than two thirds of patients with dementia underwent surgery, which contradicts recommendations for almost routine surgery for patients with dementia. This observation raises questions about respecting patient wishes and advance directives when known, possible detrimental delays in referrals, and legal-medical issues.

Furthermore, the treatment choices of American surgeons are clearly influenced by the type of hip fracture. Fractures of the head and neck of the femur are typically treated with prosthetic arthroplasty, which simplifies postoperative care, compared with osteosynthesis. The latter procedure is more often used for extra-articular hip fractures but entails higher risks. While survival is an apparently more easily achievable goal through surgery, ethical considerations about other treatment objectives such as pain control, functional recovery, and treatment adequacy cannot be overlooked. It is worth noting that the French National Authority for Health issued recommendations in 2018 regarding the care pathway for patients hospitalized for a hip fracture within an orthogeriatric organization.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Medical News professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uterus transplants in women with absolute uterine-factor infertility resulted in a 70% success rate of women later giving birth.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 20 women with uterine-factor infertility, a condition in which women do not have a uterus or have one that is not functional; each patient had at least one functioning ovary and uterine abnormalities.
• All patients underwent womb transplantation at a large US specialized care center between 2016 and 2019.
• The transplant was performed using grafts from 18 living donors and two deceased donors.
• Patients received anti-rejection medication until the transplanted uterus was removed following one or two live births or graft failure.
• Researchers measured uterus graft survival and subsequent live births.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the 20 participants, 14 (70%) had successful uterus transplants and all 14 gave birth to at least one healthy infant.
• Half of the successful pregnancies had complications, which included gestational hypertension (14%), cervical insufficiency (14%), and preterm labor (14%).
• None of the 16 live-born infants had congenital malformations, and no developmental delays were observed as of May 2024.
• Four of the 18 living donors experienced grade 3 complications, including ureteral obstruction and thermal injury to the ureters.

IN PRACTICE:

“Uterus transplant was technically feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival,” wrote the authors of the study. “Adverse events were common, with medical and surgical risks affecting recipients as well as donors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giuliano Testa, MD, MBA, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on data from a single center. The sample size was small. The high cost of uterus transplants limits generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uterus transplants in women with absolute uterine-factor infertility resulted in a 70% success rate of women later giving birth.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 20 women with uterine-factor infertility, a condition in which women do not have a uterus or have one that is not functional; each patient had at least one functioning ovary and uterine abnormalities.
• All patients underwent womb transplantation at a large US specialized care center between 2016 and 2019.
• The transplant was performed using grafts from 18 living donors and two deceased donors.
• Patients received anti-rejection medication until the transplanted uterus was removed following one or two live births or graft failure.
• Researchers measured uterus graft survival and subsequent live births.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the 20 participants, 14 (70%) had successful uterus transplants and all 14 gave birth to at least one healthy infant.
• Half of the successful pregnancies had complications, which included gestational hypertension (14%), cervical insufficiency (14%), and preterm labor (14%).
• None of the 16 live-born infants had congenital malformations, and no developmental delays were observed as of May 2024.
• Four of the 18 living donors experienced grade 3 complications, including ureteral obstruction and thermal injury to the ureters.

IN PRACTICE:

“Uterus transplant was technically feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival,” wrote the authors of the study. “Adverse events were common, with medical and surgical risks affecting recipients as well as donors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giuliano Testa, MD, MBA, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on data from a single center. The sample size was small. The high cost of uterus transplants limits generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uterus transplants in women with absolute uterine-factor infertility resulted in a 70% success rate of women later giving birth.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 20 women with uterine-factor infertility, a condition in which women do not have a uterus or have one that is not functional; each patient had at least one functioning ovary and uterine abnormalities.
• All patients underwent womb transplantation at a large US specialized care center between 2016 and 2019.
• The transplant was performed using grafts from 18 living donors and two deceased donors.
• Patients received anti-rejection medication until the transplanted uterus was removed following one or two live births or graft failure.
• Researchers measured uterus graft survival and subsequent live births.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the 20 participants, 14 (70%) had successful uterus transplants and all 14 gave birth to at least one healthy infant.
• Half of the successful pregnancies had complications, which included gestational hypertension (14%), cervical insufficiency (14%), and preterm labor (14%).
• None of the 16 live-born infants had congenital malformations, and no developmental delays were observed as of May 2024.
• Four of the 18 living donors experienced grade 3 complications, including ureteral obstruction and thermal injury to the ureters.

IN PRACTICE:

“Uterus transplant was technically feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival,” wrote the authors of the study. “Adverse events were common, with medical and surgical risks affecting recipients as well as donors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giuliano Testa, MD, MBA, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on data from a single center. The sample size was small. The high cost of uterus transplants limits generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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