Heidi Splete

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kavic had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kavic had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kavic had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A combination of remote, supervised aerobic training, resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers recruited 24 adults aged 60-80 years with RA who met criteria for overweight or obesity; participants were randomized to a Supervised Weight Loss and Exercise Training (SWET) or Counseling Health as Treatment (CHAT) program for 16 weeks.
• The SWET intervention included remote supervision of aerobic training of 150 minutes/week moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 2 days per week of resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet based on a weight loss goal of 7% of body weight. The CHAT patients served as controls and completed two lifestyle counseling sessions followed by monthly check-ins.
• The primary outcome was change in a composite measure of cardiovascular risk based on metabolic syndrome z-score (MSSc), a continuous weighted score of five metabolic syndrome components: Waist circumference, mean arterial blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both groups showed improvement in the primary outcome of MSSc, with absolute changes from baseline of −1.67 for the SWET group and −1.34 for the CHAT group (P < .01 for both).
• Participants in the SWET group showed significantly more improvement in secondary outcome measures of body weight, fat mass, and disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), as well as greater improvement in patient-reported physical and mental health, physical function, and fatigue, than those in the CHAT group, but the CHAT group improved significantly compared with their baseline.
• The strongest specific effects for the different components of the intervention were those of aerobic training on physical function and fatigue, resistance training on DAS28-CRP, and weight loss on MSSc.
• Neither group experienced significant changes in lean mass, absolute peak V02, unilateral isometric knee extension, or bilateral grip strength.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings from our study indicate, at a minimum, integrating even 2 hours of healthy lifestyle counseling may improve RA management, let alone demonstrate the substantial impact that can be provided by a comprehensive, remotely supervised lifestyle intervention,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Brian J. Andonian, MD, of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The study was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size was a limitation of the study findings, as was the lack of blinding and high level of motivation in the CHAT group, who had greater improvements than expected in weight loss and increased physical activity; the study also was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential physical and mental effects on participants who tested positive during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center of the US National Institute on Aging.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A combination of remote, supervised aerobic training, resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers recruited 24 adults aged 60-80 years with RA who met criteria for overweight or obesity; participants were randomized to a Supervised Weight Loss and Exercise Training (SWET) or Counseling Health as Treatment (CHAT) program for 16 weeks.
• The SWET intervention included remote supervision of aerobic training of 150 minutes/week moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 2 days per week of resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet based on a weight loss goal of 7% of body weight. The CHAT patients served as controls and completed two lifestyle counseling sessions followed by monthly check-ins.
• The primary outcome was change in a composite measure of cardiovascular risk based on metabolic syndrome z-score (MSSc), a continuous weighted score of five metabolic syndrome components: Waist circumference, mean arterial blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both groups showed improvement in the primary outcome of MSSc, with absolute changes from baseline of −1.67 for the SWET group and −1.34 for the CHAT group (P < .01 for both).
• Participants in the SWET group showed significantly more improvement in secondary outcome measures of body weight, fat mass, and disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), as well as greater improvement in patient-reported physical and mental health, physical function, and fatigue, than those in the CHAT group, but the CHAT group improved significantly compared with their baseline.
• The strongest specific effects for the different components of the intervention were those of aerobic training on physical function and fatigue, resistance training on DAS28-CRP, and weight loss on MSSc.
• Neither group experienced significant changes in lean mass, absolute peak V02, unilateral isometric knee extension, or bilateral grip strength.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings from our study indicate, at a minimum, integrating even 2 hours of healthy lifestyle counseling may improve RA management, let alone demonstrate the substantial impact that can be provided by a comprehensive, remotely supervised lifestyle intervention,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Brian J. Andonian, MD, of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The study was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size was a limitation of the study findings, as was the lack of blinding and high level of motivation in the CHAT group, who had greater improvements than expected in weight loss and increased physical activity; the study also was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential physical and mental effects on participants who tested positive during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center of the US National Institute on Aging.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A combination of remote, supervised aerobic training, resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers recruited 24 adults aged 60-80 years with RA who met criteria for overweight or obesity; participants were randomized to a Supervised Weight Loss and Exercise Training (SWET) or Counseling Health as Treatment (CHAT) program for 16 weeks.
• The SWET intervention included remote supervision of aerobic training of 150 minutes/week moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 2 days per week of resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet based on a weight loss goal of 7% of body weight. The CHAT patients served as controls and completed two lifestyle counseling sessions followed by monthly check-ins.
• The primary outcome was change in a composite measure of cardiovascular risk based on metabolic syndrome z-score (MSSc), a continuous weighted score of five metabolic syndrome components: Waist circumference, mean arterial blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both groups showed improvement in the primary outcome of MSSc, with absolute changes from baseline of −1.67 for the SWET group and −1.34 for the CHAT group (P < .01 for both).
• Participants in the SWET group showed significantly more improvement in secondary outcome measures of body weight, fat mass, and disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), as well as greater improvement in patient-reported physical and mental health, physical function, and fatigue, than those in the CHAT group, but the CHAT group improved significantly compared with their baseline.
• The strongest specific effects for the different components of the intervention were those of aerobic training on physical function and fatigue, resistance training on DAS28-CRP, and weight loss on MSSc.
• Neither group experienced significant changes in lean mass, absolute peak V02, unilateral isometric knee extension, or bilateral grip strength.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings from our study indicate, at a minimum, integrating even 2 hours of healthy lifestyle counseling may improve RA management, let alone demonstrate the substantial impact that can be provided by a comprehensive, remotely supervised lifestyle intervention,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Brian J. Andonian, MD, of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The study was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size was a limitation of the study findings, as was the lack of blinding and high level of motivation in the CHAT group, who had greater improvements than expected in weight loss and increased physical activity; the study also was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential physical and mental effects on participants who tested positive during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center of the US National Institute on Aging.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The impact of maternal factors on allergy and asthma is the subject of new research in the wake of a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to a team at Indiana University School of Medicine, according to a university press release.

Researchers led by Joan Cook-Mills, PhD, will examine the mechanisms behind the development of asthma, food allergies, and allergic diseases in children whose mothers had allergies.

“Research from the Cook-Mills lab revealed mothers with allergies have elevated levels of a specific lipid within the eicosanoid class of lipids, suggesting this lipid may have a potential influence on their offspring also developing allergies,” according to the press release.

A 5-year grant for $3.9 million was awarded to extend work by the Cook-Mills lab, and the research will focus on four areas, according to the university:

The potential impact of higher levels of lipid from mothers’ lungs may affect infants’ risk for allergy and whether this lipid is transmitted to infants during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

The potential impact of elevated levels of a specific eicosanoid in mothers with allergies promotes the creation of more dendritic cells by fetal bone marrow and how this might affect allergy risk for infants.

The potential impact of elevated eicosanoids in allergic mothers can affect the lung microbiome in mothers and their offspring, potentially leading to altered lung bacteria, which can affect immune cell responses to allergies and asthma.

The potential impact of elevated eicosanoids on whether the altered lung microbiome “actively changes the production of this eicosanoid in the lungs of allergic mothers,” according to the press release.

“Allergies and asthma cause a significant burden of disease in our pediatric population, which is further complicated by limited therapies and interventions to combat these diseases, let alone prevent their development,” Anne C. Coates, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at Maine Medical Center, Portland, said in an interview.

“The work by Cook-Mills and her colleagues will expand our understanding of the role maternal health may have on allergies and asthma and opportunities to mitigate it,” she said. The key implications of the research are the potential to facilitate the development of future clinical studies and trials that could yield novel targeted treatments for significant allergies, Dr. Coates told this news organization.

The research by Cook-Mills and her team had “the potential for the development of transformative approaches to allergy prevention and management, which could improve the health and quality of life for scores of individuals worldwide,” she said.

Dr. Coates had no financial conflicts to disclose but served on the Editorial Advisory Board of Chest Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The impact of maternal factors on allergy and asthma is the subject of new research in the wake of a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to a team at Indiana University School of Medicine, according to a university press release.

Researchers led by Joan Cook-Mills, PhD, will examine the mechanisms behind the development of asthma, food allergies, and allergic diseases in children whose mothers had allergies.

“Research from the Cook-Mills lab revealed mothers with allergies have elevated levels of a specific lipid within the eicosanoid class of lipids, suggesting this lipid may have a potential influence on their offspring also developing allergies,” according to the press release.

A 5-year grant for $3.9 million was awarded to extend work by the Cook-Mills lab, and the research will focus on four areas, according to the university:

The potential impact of higher levels of lipid from mothers’ lungs may affect infants’ risk for allergy and whether this lipid is transmitted to infants during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

The potential impact of elevated levels of a specific eicosanoid in mothers with allergies promotes the creation of more dendritic cells by fetal bone marrow and how this might affect allergy risk for infants.

The potential impact of elevated eicosanoids in allergic mothers can affect the lung microbiome in mothers and their offspring, potentially leading to altered lung bacteria, which can affect immune cell responses to allergies and asthma.

The potential impact of elevated eicosanoids on whether the altered lung microbiome “actively changes the production of this eicosanoid in the lungs of allergic mothers,” according to the press release.

“Allergies and asthma cause a significant burden of disease in our pediatric population, which is further complicated by limited therapies and interventions to combat these diseases, let alone prevent their development,” Anne C. Coates, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at Maine Medical Center, Portland, said in an interview.

“The work by Cook-Mills and her colleagues will expand our understanding of the role maternal health may have on allergies and asthma and opportunities to mitigate it,” she said. The key implications of the research are the potential to facilitate the development of future clinical studies and trials that could yield novel targeted treatments for significant allergies, Dr. Coates told this news organization.

The research by Cook-Mills and her team had “the potential for the development of transformative approaches to allergy prevention and management, which could improve the health and quality of life for scores of individuals worldwide,” she said.

Dr. Coates had no financial conflicts to disclose but served on the Editorial Advisory Board of Chest Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The impact of maternal factors on allergy and asthma is the subject of new research in the wake of a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to a team at Indiana University School of Medicine, according to a university press release.

Researchers led by Joan Cook-Mills, PhD, will examine the mechanisms behind the development of asthma, food allergies, and allergic diseases in children whose mothers had allergies.

“Research from the Cook-Mills lab revealed mothers with allergies have elevated levels of a specific lipid within the eicosanoid class of lipids, suggesting this lipid may have a potential influence on their offspring also developing allergies,” according to the press release.

A 5-year grant for $3.9 million was awarded to extend work by the Cook-Mills lab, and the research will focus on four areas, according to the university:

The potential impact of higher levels of lipid from mothers’ lungs may affect infants’ risk for allergy and whether this lipid is transmitted to infants during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

The potential impact of elevated levels of a specific eicosanoid in mothers with allergies promotes the creation of more dendritic cells by fetal bone marrow and how this might affect allergy risk for infants.

The potential impact of elevated eicosanoids in allergic mothers can affect the lung microbiome in mothers and their offspring, potentially leading to altered lung bacteria, which can affect immune cell responses to allergies and asthma.

The potential impact of elevated eicosanoids on whether the altered lung microbiome “actively changes the production of this eicosanoid in the lungs of allergic mothers,” according to the press release.

“Allergies and asthma cause a significant burden of disease in our pediatric population, which is further complicated by limited therapies and interventions to combat these diseases, let alone prevent their development,” Anne C. Coates, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at Maine Medical Center, Portland, said in an interview.

“The work by Cook-Mills and her colleagues will expand our understanding of the role maternal health may have on allergies and asthma and opportunities to mitigate it,” she said. The key implications of the research are the potential to facilitate the development of future clinical studies and trials that could yield novel targeted treatments for significant allergies, Dr. Coates told this news organization.

The research by Cook-Mills and her team had “the potential for the development of transformative approaches to allergy prevention and management, which could improve the health and quality of life for scores of individuals worldwide,” she said.

Dr. Coates had no financial conflicts to disclose but served on the Editorial Advisory Board of Chest Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Severe sleep irregularity often occurs with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and this combination approximately doubled the odds of hypertension in middle-aged individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• OSA has demonstrated an association with hypertension, but data on the impact of sleep irregularity on this relationship are lacking.
• The researchers used the recently developed sleep regularity index (SRI) to determine sleep patterns using a scale of 0-100 (with higher numbers indicating greater regularity) to assess relationships between OSA, sleep patterns, and hypertension in 602 adults with a mean age of 57 years.
• The study’s goal was an assessment of the associations between sleep regularity, OSA, and hypertension in a community sample of adults with normal circadian patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds of OSA were significantly greater for individuals with mildly irregular or severely irregular sleep than for regular sleepers (odds ratios, 1.97 and 2.06, respectively).
• Individuals with OSA and severely irregular sleep had the highest odds of hypertension compared with individuals with no OSA and regular sleep (OR, 2.34).
• However, participants with OSA and regular sleep or mildly irregular sleep had no significant increase in hypertension risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Irregular sleep may be an important marker of OSA-related sleep disruption and may be an important modifiable health target,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kelly Sansom, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Sleep Science at the University of Western Australia, Albany. The study was published online in the journal Sleep.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality, and the SRI is a nonspecific measure that may capture a range of phenotypes with one score; other limitations included the small sample sizes of sleep regularity groups and the use of actigraphy to collect sleep times.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the Raine Study PhD Top-up Scholarship; the Raine Study Scholarship is supported by the NHMRC, the Centre for Sleep Science, School of Anatomy, Physiology & Human Biology of the University of Western Australia, and the Lions Eye Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Severe sleep irregularity often occurs with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and this combination approximately doubled the odds of hypertension in middle-aged individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• OSA has demonstrated an association with hypertension, but data on the impact of sleep irregularity on this relationship are lacking.
• The researchers used the recently developed sleep regularity index (SRI) to determine sleep patterns using a scale of 0-100 (with higher numbers indicating greater regularity) to assess relationships between OSA, sleep patterns, and hypertension in 602 adults with a mean age of 57 years.
• The study’s goal was an assessment of the associations between sleep regularity, OSA, and hypertension in a community sample of adults with normal circadian patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds of OSA were significantly greater for individuals with mildly irregular or severely irregular sleep than for regular sleepers (odds ratios, 1.97 and 2.06, respectively).
• Individuals with OSA and severely irregular sleep had the highest odds of hypertension compared with individuals with no OSA and regular sleep (OR, 2.34).
• However, participants with OSA and regular sleep or mildly irregular sleep had no significant increase in hypertension risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Irregular sleep may be an important marker of OSA-related sleep disruption and may be an important modifiable health target,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kelly Sansom, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Sleep Science at the University of Western Australia, Albany. The study was published online in the journal Sleep.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality, and the SRI is a nonspecific measure that may capture a range of phenotypes with one score; other limitations included the small sample sizes of sleep regularity groups and the use of actigraphy to collect sleep times.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the Raine Study PhD Top-up Scholarship; the Raine Study Scholarship is supported by the NHMRC, the Centre for Sleep Science, School of Anatomy, Physiology & Human Biology of the University of Western Australia, and the Lions Eye Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Severe sleep irregularity often occurs with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and this combination approximately doubled the odds of hypertension in middle-aged individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• OSA has demonstrated an association with hypertension, but data on the impact of sleep irregularity on this relationship are lacking.
• The researchers used the recently developed sleep regularity index (SRI) to determine sleep patterns using a scale of 0-100 (with higher numbers indicating greater regularity) to assess relationships between OSA, sleep patterns, and hypertension in 602 adults with a mean age of 57 years.
• The study’s goal was an assessment of the associations between sleep regularity, OSA, and hypertension in a community sample of adults with normal circadian patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds of OSA were significantly greater for individuals with mildly irregular or severely irregular sleep than for regular sleepers (odds ratios, 1.97 and 2.06, respectively).
• Individuals with OSA and severely irregular sleep had the highest odds of hypertension compared with individuals with no OSA and regular sleep (OR, 2.34).
• However, participants with OSA and regular sleep or mildly irregular sleep had no significant increase in hypertension risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Irregular sleep may be an important marker of OSA-related sleep disruption and may be an important modifiable health target,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kelly Sansom, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Sleep Science at the University of Western Australia, Albany. The study was published online in the journal Sleep.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality, and the SRI is a nonspecific measure that may capture a range of phenotypes with one score; other limitations included the small sample sizes of sleep regularity groups and the use of actigraphy to collect sleep times.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the Raine Study PhD Top-up Scholarship; the Raine Study Scholarship is supported by the NHMRC, the Centre for Sleep Science, School of Anatomy, Physiology & Human Biology of the University of Western Australia, and the Lions Eye Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time arrived at peak blood pressure (BP) velocity (TAPV) was significantly earlier in children with moderate to severe (MS) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than in controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers compared 24-hour circadian BP in children with OSA and controls to examine the impact of OSA on circadian BP.
• The study population included 219 children aged 5-14 years: 52 with mild OSA, 50 with MS OSA, and 117 controls.
• Participants underwent 24-hour BP monitoring and actigraphy; models included the times of BP peaks and TAPV.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children with MS OSA had a TAPV for diastolic BP in the morning, an average of 51 minutes earlier than controls (P < .001).
• Evening TAPV was significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls for both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (95 min, P < .001 and 28 min, P = .028, respectively).
• Midday SBP and DBP velocity nadirs were significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls (57 min, P < .001 and 38 min, P < .01, respectively).
• Overall, children with MS OSA reached most BP values significantly earlier than controls, and both SBP and DBP were significantly elevated in the MS OSA group compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings provide an essential puzzle piece in our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of OSA in children,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Md Tareq Ferdous Khan, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; the authors of the accompanying editorial were Kate Ching-Ching Chan, MD, and Albert Martin Li, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. The study was published online in the journal Sleep on December 13, 2023, along with the accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

More research is needed to investigate the potential mechanisms of action, optimize methodology, and investigate circadian biology via actigraphy and biomarkers, the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time arrived at peak blood pressure (BP) velocity (TAPV) was significantly earlier in children with moderate to severe (MS) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than in controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers compared 24-hour circadian BP in children with OSA and controls to examine the impact of OSA on circadian BP.
• The study population included 219 children aged 5-14 years: 52 with mild OSA, 50 with MS OSA, and 117 controls.
• Participants underwent 24-hour BP monitoring and actigraphy; models included the times of BP peaks and TAPV.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children with MS OSA had a TAPV for diastolic BP in the morning, an average of 51 minutes earlier than controls (P < .001).
• Evening TAPV was significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls for both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (95 min, P < .001 and 28 min, P = .028, respectively).
• Midday SBP and DBP velocity nadirs were significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls (57 min, P < .001 and 38 min, P < .01, respectively).
• Overall, children with MS OSA reached most BP values significantly earlier than controls, and both SBP and DBP were significantly elevated in the MS OSA group compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings provide an essential puzzle piece in our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of OSA in children,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Md Tareq Ferdous Khan, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; the authors of the accompanying editorial were Kate Ching-Ching Chan, MD, and Albert Martin Li, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. The study was published online in the journal Sleep on December 13, 2023, along with the accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

More research is needed to investigate the potential mechanisms of action, optimize methodology, and investigate circadian biology via actigraphy and biomarkers, the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time arrived at peak blood pressure (BP) velocity (TAPV) was significantly earlier in children with moderate to severe (MS) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than in controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers compared 24-hour circadian BP in children with OSA and controls to examine the impact of OSA on circadian BP.
• The study population included 219 children aged 5-14 years: 52 with mild OSA, 50 with MS OSA, and 117 controls.
• Participants underwent 24-hour BP monitoring and actigraphy; models included the times of BP peaks and TAPV.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children with MS OSA had a TAPV for diastolic BP in the morning, an average of 51 minutes earlier than controls (P < .001).
• Evening TAPV was significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls for both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (95 min, P < .001 and 28 min, P = .028, respectively).
• Midday SBP and DBP velocity nadirs were significantly earlier in the children with MS OSA than in controls (57 min, P < .001 and 38 min, P < .01, respectively).
• Overall, children with MS OSA reached most BP values significantly earlier than controls, and both SBP and DBP were significantly elevated in the MS OSA group compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings provide an essential puzzle piece in our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of OSA in children,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Md Tareq Ferdous Khan, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; the authors of the accompanying editorial were Kate Ching-Ching Chan, MD, and Albert Martin Li, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. The study was published online in the journal Sleep on December 13, 2023, along with the accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

More research is needed to investigate the potential mechanisms of action, optimize methodology, and investigate circadian biology via actigraphy and biomarkers, the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 5 days was noninferior to a 10-day course of treatment among children with noncomplicated febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), according to new research.

Well-appearing children with febrile UTIs are generally treated with a 10-day course of oral antibiotics, but the effectiveness of a 5-day course has not been evaluated, wrote Giovanni Montini, MD, of the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and colleagues.

Robert W. Frenck Jr, MD, a director of the Center for Vaccine Research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio, said he was not surprised that the shorter course was sufficient to treat these cases. The antibiotic concentration in the urine often significantly exceeds the levels in the blood, he said.

Dr. Frenck, who was not involved in the study, said that he saw no real barriers to the use of a shorter course of therapy in clinical practice.

“I think both parents and the medical team would be happy to be able to use a shorter course of therapy,” he said.

In the study published in Pediatrics , researchers randomized 142 children aged 3 months to 5 years with uncomplicated febrile UTIs to 50 mg/kg/d of amoxicillin-clavulanate for either the short or standard period. The study took place at eight pediatric emergency departments in Italy between May 2020 and September 2022. All patients received prescriptions for 5 days of antibiotics, and those randomized to the standard course received a second prescription after randomization.

The primary endpoint was recurrence of the UTI within 30 days of completion of therapy. Secondary endpoints included clinical recovery at the end of treatment, adverse events related to the therapy, and signs of antibiotic resistance.

The UTI recurrence rate within 30 days of treatment completion was 2.8% in the short-course group and 14.3% in the standard group. A post hoc analysis excluding patients with vesicoureteral reflux and non–Escherichia coli UTIs further confirmed the noninferiority of short-course treatment.

“It is a bit surprising that the short-course group had fewer relapses within 30 days of discontinuing antibiotics,” Dr. Frenck said. “However, the differences may be due to small sample sizes and do not appear to be statistically significant differences in recurrence rates.”

Resolution of symptoms was similar between the short-course and standard groups (97.2% and 92.9%, respectively), and indications of antibiotic resistance were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported in the standard group, and one case of diarrhea occurred in the short-course group.

The findings were limited by the study’s unblinded randomization, so parents were aware of the trial and were potentially sensitized to look for signs of infection. Researchers also relied on parent reports of adverse drug effects rather than through a standardized questionnaire, the researchers noted.

Dr. Frenck said a potential benefit to shortening treatment is that adherence usually increases.

“But you only want to decrease the length of a course of medicine if you can do so without compromising the effectiveness of the treatment,” Dr. Frenck said.

Dr. Frenck also noted a recent study, which demonstrated that 5 days of antibiotics had equivalent efficacy as 10 days for uncomplicated pneumonia.

“The current paper further demonstrates that shorter courses of antibiotics may be possible for other mild forms of infections.”

Looking ahead, researchers could evaluate the use of short-course antibiotics for other common infections such as otitis media, he noted.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. The researchers report no financial conflicts. Dr. Frenck disclosed conducting clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck, and GSK; none of those trials were for antibiotics or urinary tract infections.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 5 days was noninferior to a 10-day course of treatment among children with noncomplicated febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), according to new research.

Well-appearing children with febrile UTIs are generally treated with a 10-day course of oral antibiotics, but the effectiveness of a 5-day course has not been evaluated, wrote Giovanni Montini, MD, of the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and colleagues.

Robert W. Frenck Jr, MD, a director of the Center for Vaccine Research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio, said he was not surprised that the shorter course was sufficient to treat these cases. The antibiotic concentration in the urine often significantly exceeds the levels in the blood, he said.

Dr. Frenck, who was not involved in the study, said that he saw no real barriers to the use of a shorter course of therapy in clinical practice.

“I think both parents and the medical team would be happy to be able to use a shorter course of therapy,” he said.

In the study published in Pediatrics , researchers randomized 142 children aged 3 months to 5 years with uncomplicated febrile UTIs to 50 mg/kg/d of amoxicillin-clavulanate for either the short or standard period. The study took place at eight pediatric emergency departments in Italy between May 2020 and September 2022. All patients received prescriptions for 5 days of antibiotics, and those randomized to the standard course received a second prescription after randomization.

The primary endpoint was recurrence of the UTI within 30 days of completion of therapy. Secondary endpoints included clinical recovery at the end of treatment, adverse events related to the therapy, and signs of antibiotic resistance.

The UTI recurrence rate within 30 days of treatment completion was 2.8% in the short-course group and 14.3% in the standard group. A post hoc analysis excluding patients with vesicoureteral reflux and non–Escherichia coli UTIs further confirmed the noninferiority of short-course treatment.

“It is a bit surprising that the short-course group had fewer relapses within 30 days of discontinuing antibiotics,” Dr. Frenck said. “However, the differences may be due to small sample sizes and do not appear to be statistically significant differences in recurrence rates.”

Resolution of symptoms was similar between the short-course and standard groups (97.2% and 92.9%, respectively), and indications of antibiotic resistance were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported in the standard group, and one case of diarrhea occurred in the short-course group.

The findings were limited by the study’s unblinded randomization, so parents were aware of the trial and were potentially sensitized to look for signs of infection. Researchers also relied on parent reports of adverse drug effects rather than through a standardized questionnaire, the researchers noted.

Dr. Frenck said a potential benefit to shortening treatment is that adherence usually increases.

“But you only want to decrease the length of a course of medicine if you can do so without compromising the effectiveness of the treatment,” Dr. Frenck said.

Dr. Frenck also noted a recent study, which demonstrated that 5 days of antibiotics had equivalent efficacy as 10 days for uncomplicated pneumonia.

“The current paper further demonstrates that shorter courses of antibiotics may be possible for other mild forms of infections.”

Looking ahead, researchers could evaluate the use of short-course antibiotics for other common infections such as otitis media, he noted.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. The researchers report no financial conflicts. Dr. Frenck disclosed conducting clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck, and GSK; none of those trials were for antibiotics or urinary tract infections.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 5 days was noninferior to a 10-day course of treatment among children with noncomplicated febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), according to new research.

Well-appearing children with febrile UTIs are generally treated with a 10-day course of oral antibiotics, but the effectiveness of a 5-day course has not been evaluated, wrote Giovanni Montini, MD, of the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and colleagues.

Robert W. Frenck Jr, MD, a director of the Center for Vaccine Research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio, said he was not surprised that the shorter course was sufficient to treat these cases. The antibiotic concentration in the urine often significantly exceeds the levels in the blood, he said.

Dr. Frenck, who was not involved in the study, said that he saw no real barriers to the use of a shorter course of therapy in clinical practice.

“I think both parents and the medical team would be happy to be able to use a shorter course of therapy,” he said.

In the study published in Pediatrics , researchers randomized 142 children aged 3 months to 5 years with uncomplicated febrile UTIs to 50 mg/kg/d of amoxicillin-clavulanate for either the short or standard period. The study took place at eight pediatric emergency departments in Italy between May 2020 and September 2022. All patients received prescriptions for 5 days of antibiotics, and those randomized to the standard course received a second prescription after randomization.

The primary endpoint was recurrence of the UTI within 30 days of completion of therapy. Secondary endpoints included clinical recovery at the end of treatment, adverse events related to the therapy, and signs of antibiotic resistance.

The UTI recurrence rate within 30 days of treatment completion was 2.8% in the short-course group and 14.3% in the standard group. A post hoc analysis excluding patients with vesicoureteral reflux and non–Escherichia coli UTIs further confirmed the noninferiority of short-course treatment.

“It is a bit surprising that the short-course group had fewer relapses within 30 days of discontinuing antibiotics,” Dr. Frenck said. “However, the differences may be due to small sample sizes and do not appear to be statistically significant differences in recurrence rates.”

Resolution of symptoms was similar between the short-course and standard groups (97.2% and 92.9%, respectively), and indications of antibiotic resistance were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported in the standard group, and one case of diarrhea occurred in the short-course group.

The findings were limited by the study’s unblinded randomization, so parents were aware of the trial and were potentially sensitized to look for signs of infection. Researchers also relied on parent reports of adverse drug effects rather than through a standardized questionnaire, the researchers noted.

Dr. Frenck said a potential benefit to shortening treatment is that adherence usually increases.

“But you only want to decrease the length of a course of medicine if you can do so without compromising the effectiveness of the treatment,” Dr. Frenck said.

Dr. Frenck also noted a recent study, which demonstrated that 5 days of antibiotics had equivalent efficacy as 10 days for uncomplicated pneumonia.

“The current paper further demonstrates that shorter courses of antibiotics may be possible for other mild forms of infections.”

Looking ahead, researchers could evaluate the use of short-course antibiotics for other common infections such as otitis media, he noted.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. The researchers report no financial conflicts. Dr. Frenck disclosed conducting clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck, and GSK; none of those trials were for antibiotics or urinary tract infections.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-acquired adverse events or conditions including falls and infections increased by approximately 25% after hospitals’ acquisition by private equity compared with control hospitals, on the basis of a study of Medicare claims for more than 4,500,000 hospitalizations.

“Prior research on private equity in health care showed that acquisition is associated with higher charges, prices, and spending; however, the implications for quality of care and patient outcomes remained less understood,” corresponding author Zirui Song, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was particularly true for measures of clinical quality that were less susceptible to changes in patient mix or coding behavior, such as hospital-acquired adverse events.”

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers compared data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662,095 hospitalizations at 51 hospitals acquired by private equities and 4,160,720 hospitalizations at 259 control hospitals. The hospitalizations occurred between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after acquisition, controlling for patient and hospital attributes.

Hospital-acquired adverse events as defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included falls, infections, stage III or IV pressure ulcers, foreign objects retained after surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility.

Overall, Medicare patients in private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those in control hospitals through a period of up to 3 years after acquisition, with a difference of 4.6 additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10,000 hospitalizations (P = .004). Central line-associated bloodstream infections accounted for 37.7% of the increase (P = .04), despite a 16.2% decrease in placement of central lines, and falls accounted for 27.3% (P = .02).

Notably, the incidence of surgical site infections increased from 10.8 per 10,000 hospitalizations before acquisition to 21.6 per 10,000 hospitalizations after acquisition, despite a reduction of 8.1% in surgical volume. By contrast, surgical site infections decreased at control hospitals over the study period.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals, but there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. The slight difference might be caused by the trend in slightly younger Medicare beneficiaries treated at private equity hospitals; these patients were less likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and were more likely to be transferred to other hospitals, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of generalizability to all private equity-acquired hospitals and to non-Medicare patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that might have failed to capture all hospital-acquired conditions and the inability to account for all confounding factors.

However, the results suggest that private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events and highlight concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare delivery, the researchers concluded.

In a related story published in July 2023, this news organization described a report showing an association between private equity ownership of medical practices and increased consumer prices for multiple medical specialties.

“Medicare patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals experienced, on average, an 25% increase in hospital-acquired adverse events after the hospital was bought compared to similar patients at hospitals not acquired by private equity firms. We were surprised by the extent of this change relative to the comparison (non-private equity) hospitals, including the sizable increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections and the doubling of surgical site infections at private equity hospitals — both of which went down at the comparison hospitals during the same period,” Dr. Song said in an interview.

“A key implication is that patients, providers, and policymakers might be more attuned to the potential clinical impact of private equity ownership in the delivery system. Given that a plausible explanation for these findings is reductions in clinician staffing, clinical organizations and policymakers might also be more aware of cost-cutting strategies after acquisition,” Dr. Song said. “Prior research has shown that hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices experience staffing cuts after private equity acquisition, which is a common way to reduce operating costs and boost the profitability of acquired entities,” he noted.

“More research is needed to understand the impact of private equity acquisitions across health care settings and the potential effects of policy levers that aim to protect patients and societal resources,” said Dr. Song, who coauthored an article outlining a policy framework for addressing private equity in healthcare, published in JAMA in April 2023. “Potential regulatory remedies include minimum staffing ratios, antitrust enforcement, mitigating the financial risk of such acquisitions, increasing the transparency of these acquisitions, and protecting patients and society from the higher prices of care attributed to this model of provider ownership,” he said.
 

Patients Pay the Price of Private Equity Acquisition

“The exponential growth in private equity ownership in hospital and physician practices in the past few decades has left a majority of health care providers disillusioned with cost-cutting practices resulting in staffing reductions and ratios that sacrifice patient care as part of their approach to running clinical operations ‘lean,’ ” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, said in an interview.

“While private equity companies argue that such practices are essential to meet their bottom line and increase operating margins, it doesn’t translate into ideal care for patients; lean practices in staffing which focus on profits at the expense of patient safety and quality of care.

“When you look at patient outcomes, it is the patients who ultimately pay the price — not the shareholders,” Dr. Glatter said. “This translates to higher risks of hospital-acquired complications including falls and blood-borne infections, including surgical site infections, as noted by the authors of the current study when private equity took over operations in hospitals.

Dr. Glatter said he was not surprised by the findings. “In my world, patient care and safety come first. Period,” he said. “Would you want your family’s health and well-being sacrificed in the name of company profits? I think it’s a rhetorical question, but one that every health care provider who works in a hospital or practice run by private equity must consider.”

Despite a decline in utilization at private equity hospitals as noted in the current study, hospital-acquired infections and adverse outcomes still increased, illustrating a decline in quality of care, said Dr. Glatter. “While these disparities were not evident when looking at 30-day outcomes, they demonstrate how operational changes impact patient outcomes in the near term. Having younger and healthier patients, and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients combined with more hospital transfers to non–private equity run hospitals, resulted in lower in-hospital mortality in the near term, which was not apparent at 30 days post discharge,” he said.

“The explosion of hospital mergers and consolidation in the past several decades has led to skyrocketing health care costs at the expense of patient satisfaction, but also health care providers’ autonomy to manage and maintain quality care for their patients,” Dr. Glatter said.

“It’s important to understand that private equity’s interests are primarily aligned with their shareholder’s interests, as opposed to patients’ outcomes and interests,” Dr. Glatter told this news organization. “Within 5-7 years, the goal is to increase operating margins and profits and then sell a practice or hospital, which is ultimately part of a ‘health care portfolio,’ ” he said.

Additional research is needed to examine whether other hospital-acquired conditions including pressure sores, catheter-associated UTIs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and nosocomial pneumonia have increased in hospitals following private equity acquisition, given the overall national decline in these events, he said.

“At the same time, it is vital to also look at management and readmission rates for patients with strokes, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure in hospitals that are run by private equity,” Dr. Glatter noted. “These are important benchmarks of care monitored by CMS that reflect the quality of care that payers ultimately factor into reimbursement.”

Examining the metrics associated with these diagnoses will help in understanding whether private equity-managed facilities are leading to adverse outcomes and mortality, increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased nosocomial infections, apart from other aspects of patient experience, Dr. Glatter added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and Arnold Ventures. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Glatter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Medscape Emergency Medicine Editorial Board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-acquired adverse events or conditions including falls and infections increased by approximately 25% after hospitals’ acquisition by private equity compared with control hospitals, on the basis of a study of Medicare claims for more than 4,500,000 hospitalizations.

“Prior research on private equity in health care showed that acquisition is associated with higher charges, prices, and spending; however, the implications for quality of care and patient outcomes remained less understood,” corresponding author Zirui Song, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was particularly true for measures of clinical quality that were less susceptible to changes in patient mix or coding behavior, such as hospital-acquired adverse events.”

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers compared data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662,095 hospitalizations at 51 hospitals acquired by private equities and 4,160,720 hospitalizations at 259 control hospitals. The hospitalizations occurred between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after acquisition, controlling for patient and hospital attributes.

Hospital-acquired adverse events as defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included falls, infections, stage III or IV pressure ulcers, foreign objects retained after surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility.

Overall, Medicare patients in private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those in control hospitals through a period of up to 3 years after acquisition, with a difference of 4.6 additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10,000 hospitalizations (P = .004). Central line-associated bloodstream infections accounted for 37.7% of the increase (P = .04), despite a 16.2% decrease in placement of central lines, and falls accounted for 27.3% (P = .02).

Notably, the incidence of surgical site infections increased from 10.8 per 10,000 hospitalizations before acquisition to 21.6 per 10,000 hospitalizations after acquisition, despite a reduction of 8.1% in surgical volume. By contrast, surgical site infections decreased at control hospitals over the study period.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals, but there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. The slight difference might be caused by the trend in slightly younger Medicare beneficiaries treated at private equity hospitals; these patients were less likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and were more likely to be transferred to other hospitals, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of generalizability to all private equity-acquired hospitals and to non-Medicare patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that might have failed to capture all hospital-acquired conditions and the inability to account for all confounding factors.

However, the results suggest that private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events and highlight concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare delivery, the researchers concluded.

In a related story published in July 2023, this news organization described a report showing an association between private equity ownership of medical practices and increased consumer prices for multiple medical specialties.

“Medicare patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals experienced, on average, an 25% increase in hospital-acquired adverse events after the hospital was bought compared to similar patients at hospitals not acquired by private equity firms. We were surprised by the extent of this change relative to the comparison (non-private equity) hospitals, including the sizable increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections and the doubling of surgical site infections at private equity hospitals — both of which went down at the comparison hospitals during the same period,” Dr. Song said in an interview.

“A key implication is that patients, providers, and policymakers might be more attuned to the potential clinical impact of private equity ownership in the delivery system. Given that a plausible explanation for these findings is reductions in clinician staffing, clinical organizations and policymakers might also be more aware of cost-cutting strategies after acquisition,” Dr. Song said. “Prior research has shown that hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices experience staffing cuts after private equity acquisition, which is a common way to reduce operating costs and boost the profitability of acquired entities,” he noted.

“More research is needed to understand the impact of private equity acquisitions across health care settings and the potential effects of policy levers that aim to protect patients and societal resources,” said Dr. Song, who coauthored an article outlining a policy framework for addressing private equity in healthcare, published in JAMA in April 2023. “Potential regulatory remedies include minimum staffing ratios, antitrust enforcement, mitigating the financial risk of such acquisitions, increasing the transparency of these acquisitions, and protecting patients and society from the higher prices of care attributed to this model of provider ownership,” he said.
 

Patients Pay the Price of Private Equity Acquisition

“The exponential growth in private equity ownership in hospital and physician practices in the past few decades has left a majority of health care providers disillusioned with cost-cutting practices resulting in staffing reductions and ratios that sacrifice patient care as part of their approach to running clinical operations ‘lean,’ ” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, said in an interview.

“While private equity companies argue that such practices are essential to meet their bottom line and increase operating margins, it doesn’t translate into ideal care for patients; lean practices in staffing which focus on profits at the expense of patient safety and quality of care.

“When you look at patient outcomes, it is the patients who ultimately pay the price — not the shareholders,” Dr. Glatter said. “This translates to higher risks of hospital-acquired complications including falls and blood-borne infections, including surgical site infections, as noted by the authors of the current study when private equity took over operations in hospitals.

Dr. Glatter said he was not surprised by the findings. “In my world, patient care and safety come first. Period,” he said. “Would you want your family’s health and well-being sacrificed in the name of company profits? I think it’s a rhetorical question, but one that every health care provider who works in a hospital or practice run by private equity must consider.”

Despite a decline in utilization at private equity hospitals as noted in the current study, hospital-acquired infections and adverse outcomes still increased, illustrating a decline in quality of care, said Dr. Glatter. “While these disparities were not evident when looking at 30-day outcomes, they demonstrate how operational changes impact patient outcomes in the near term. Having younger and healthier patients, and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients combined with more hospital transfers to non–private equity run hospitals, resulted in lower in-hospital mortality in the near term, which was not apparent at 30 days post discharge,” he said.

“The explosion of hospital mergers and consolidation in the past several decades has led to skyrocketing health care costs at the expense of patient satisfaction, but also health care providers’ autonomy to manage and maintain quality care for their patients,” Dr. Glatter said.

“It’s important to understand that private equity’s interests are primarily aligned with their shareholder’s interests, as opposed to patients’ outcomes and interests,” Dr. Glatter told this news organization. “Within 5-7 years, the goal is to increase operating margins and profits and then sell a practice or hospital, which is ultimately part of a ‘health care portfolio,’ ” he said.

Additional research is needed to examine whether other hospital-acquired conditions including pressure sores, catheter-associated UTIs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and nosocomial pneumonia have increased in hospitals following private equity acquisition, given the overall national decline in these events, he said.

“At the same time, it is vital to also look at management and readmission rates for patients with strokes, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure in hospitals that are run by private equity,” Dr. Glatter noted. “These are important benchmarks of care monitored by CMS that reflect the quality of care that payers ultimately factor into reimbursement.”

Examining the metrics associated with these diagnoses will help in understanding whether private equity-managed facilities are leading to adverse outcomes and mortality, increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased nosocomial infections, apart from other aspects of patient experience, Dr. Glatter added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and Arnold Ventures. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Glatter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Medscape Emergency Medicine Editorial Board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-acquired adverse events or conditions including falls and infections increased by approximately 25% after hospitals’ acquisition by private equity compared with control hospitals, on the basis of a study of Medicare claims for more than 4,500,000 hospitalizations.

“Prior research on private equity in health care showed that acquisition is associated with higher charges, prices, and spending; however, the implications for quality of care and patient outcomes remained less understood,” corresponding author Zirui Song, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was particularly true for measures of clinical quality that were less susceptible to changes in patient mix or coding behavior, such as hospital-acquired adverse events.”

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers compared data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662,095 hospitalizations at 51 hospitals acquired by private equities and 4,160,720 hospitalizations at 259 control hospitals. The hospitalizations occurred between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after acquisition, controlling for patient and hospital attributes.

Hospital-acquired adverse events as defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included falls, infections, stage III or IV pressure ulcers, foreign objects retained after surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility.

Overall, Medicare patients in private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those in control hospitals through a period of up to 3 years after acquisition, with a difference of 4.6 additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10,000 hospitalizations (P = .004). Central line-associated bloodstream infections accounted for 37.7% of the increase (P = .04), despite a 16.2% decrease in placement of central lines, and falls accounted for 27.3% (P = .02).

Notably, the incidence of surgical site infections increased from 10.8 per 10,000 hospitalizations before acquisition to 21.6 per 10,000 hospitalizations after acquisition, despite a reduction of 8.1% in surgical volume. By contrast, surgical site infections decreased at control hospitals over the study period.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals, but there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. The slight difference might be caused by the trend in slightly younger Medicare beneficiaries treated at private equity hospitals; these patients were less likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and were more likely to be transferred to other hospitals, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of generalizability to all private equity-acquired hospitals and to non-Medicare patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that might have failed to capture all hospital-acquired conditions and the inability to account for all confounding factors.

However, the results suggest that private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events and highlight concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare delivery, the researchers concluded.

In a related story published in July 2023, this news organization described a report showing an association between private equity ownership of medical practices and increased consumer prices for multiple medical specialties.

“Medicare patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals experienced, on average, an 25% increase in hospital-acquired adverse events after the hospital was bought compared to similar patients at hospitals not acquired by private equity firms. We were surprised by the extent of this change relative to the comparison (non-private equity) hospitals, including the sizable increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections and the doubling of surgical site infections at private equity hospitals — both of which went down at the comparison hospitals during the same period,” Dr. Song said in an interview.

“A key implication is that patients, providers, and policymakers might be more attuned to the potential clinical impact of private equity ownership in the delivery system. Given that a plausible explanation for these findings is reductions in clinician staffing, clinical organizations and policymakers might also be more aware of cost-cutting strategies after acquisition,” Dr. Song said. “Prior research has shown that hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices experience staffing cuts after private equity acquisition, which is a common way to reduce operating costs and boost the profitability of acquired entities,” he noted.

“More research is needed to understand the impact of private equity acquisitions across health care settings and the potential effects of policy levers that aim to protect patients and societal resources,” said Dr. Song, who coauthored an article outlining a policy framework for addressing private equity in healthcare, published in JAMA in April 2023. “Potential regulatory remedies include minimum staffing ratios, antitrust enforcement, mitigating the financial risk of such acquisitions, increasing the transparency of these acquisitions, and protecting patients and society from the higher prices of care attributed to this model of provider ownership,” he said.
 

Patients Pay the Price of Private Equity Acquisition

“The exponential growth in private equity ownership in hospital and physician practices in the past few decades has left a majority of health care providers disillusioned with cost-cutting practices resulting in staffing reductions and ratios that sacrifice patient care as part of their approach to running clinical operations ‘lean,’ ” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, said in an interview.

“While private equity companies argue that such practices are essential to meet their bottom line and increase operating margins, it doesn’t translate into ideal care for patients; lean practices in staffing which focus on profits at the expense of patient safety and quality of care.

“When you look at patient outcomes, it is the patients who ultimately pay the price — not the shareholders,” Dr. Glatter said. “This translates to higher risks of hospital-acquired complications including falls and blood-borne infections, including surgical site infections, as noted by the authors of the current study when private equity took over operations in hospitals.

Dr. Glatter said he was not surprised by the findings. “In my world, patient care and safety come first. Period,” he said. “Would you want your family’s health and well-being sacrificed in the name of company profits? I think it’s a rhetorical question, but one that every health care provider who works in a hospital or practice run by private equity must consider.”

Despite a decline in utilization at private equity hospitals as noted in the current study, hospital-acquired infections and adverse outcomes still increased, illustrating a decline in quality of care, said Dr. Glatter. “While these disparities were not evident when looking at 30-day outcomes, they demonstrate how operational changes impact patient outcomes in the near term. Having younger and healthier patients, and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients combined with more hospital transfers to non–private equity run hospitals, resulted in lower in-hospital mortality in the near term, which was not apparent at 30 days post discharge,” he said.

“The explosion of hospital mergers and consolidation in the past several decades has led to skyrocketing health care costs at the expense of patient satisfaction, but also health care providers’ autonomy to manage and maintain quality care for their patients,” Dr. Glatter said.

“It’s important to understand that private equity’s interests are primarily aligned with their shareholder’s interests, as opposed to patients’ outcomes and interests,” Dr. Glatter told this news organization. “Within 5-7 years, the goal is to increase operating margins and profits and then sell a practice or hospital, which is ultimately part of a ‘health care portfolio,’ ” he said.

Additional research is needed to examine whether other hospital-acquired conditions including pressure sores, catheter-associated UTIs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and nosocomial pneumonia have increased in hospitals following private equity acquisition, given the overall national decline in these events, he said.

“At the same time, it is vital to also look at management and readmission rates for patients with strokes, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure in hospitals that are run by private equity,” Dr. Glatter noted. “These are important benchmarks of care monitored by CMS that reflect the quality of care that payers ultimately factor into reimbursement.”

Examining the metrics associated with these diagnoses will help in understanding whether private equity-managed facilities are leading to adverse outcomes and mortality, increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased nosocomial infections, apart from other aspects of patient experience, Dr. Glatter added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and Arnold Ventures. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Glatter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Medscape Emergency Medicine Editorial Board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A series of Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes have been recalled by the manufacturer because of a risk for burns and fire, according to a statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

However, “this recall is a correction, not a product removal,” according to the FDA. Clinicians do not need to cease using these devices, but they must be mindful of the risks and take the precautions outlined by Olympus.

“While health care providers may choose to continue using the Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes, to maximize patient safety and mitigate any potential risk to patient health, the FDA and Olympus advise users not to perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen, and carefully follow the warnings provided in the Olympus operators manual and highlighted in its October 12, 2023, letter to customers,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The recall affects Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes distributed between January 1, 2001, and September 11, 2023. According to the FDA statement, use of these devices may cause serious adverse events to patients and to clinicians. Patients treated with these devices could experience critical burns in the airways or lungs, airway bleeding, breathing difficulty, apnea, loss of consciousness, or death. Healthcare workers using the devices also may be affected in the event of combustion. 

On October 12, 2023, Olympus sent an Urgent Medical Device Corrective Action letter. This letter outlined the risks associated with the devices as follows: 

“There is a risk of endobronchial combustion if high-frequency cauterization is performed while supplying oxygen [and/or] the electrode section of the electrosurgical accessory is too close to the distal end of the endoscope.” 

To mitigate this risk, Olympus reminds clinicians to heed the warnings found in the device operations manuals, notably these three: 

• Do not perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen.
• Confirm that the electrode section of the electrosurgical device used with the endoscope is at a safe distance from the distal end of the endoscope.
• Only use the Olympus bronchoscopes with compatible high-frequency therapy equipment as described in the operations manual.

The letter also asks facilities that have purchased any of the affected bronchoscopes to ensure that all personnel are “completely knowledgeable and thoroughly aware” of the warnings stated in the operations manual, and it states that users may continue to use the devices according to the current instructions and with attention to the warnings.
 

Olympus Explains

“Olympus Corporation initiated this Field Corrective Action (FCA) to address complaints of endobronchial combustion occurring when high-frequency-compatible bronchoscopes are used during therapeutic procedures in combination with high-frequency therapy equipment,” a spokeswoman for Olympus said in an interview. 

“This corrective action was taken following a thorough assessment of adverse event complaints involving serious patient injury; Olympus takes these complaints very seriously. Patient safety is our top priority,” the spokeswoman said. “The customer notification is intended to remind users of existing warnings not to use oxygen while performing high-frequency cauterization and appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment.” 

The products are not being removed, and no labeling changes are being made at this time, she said. 

The bottom line for clinicians: “Users can continue to use Olympus bronchoscopes according to the instructions provided in the operation manual and the customer letter,” the Olympus spokeswoman told this news organization. “This is not a removal action. There are no changes to the existing operation manual regarding compatibility of bronchoscopes with high-frequency therapy equipment,” she said.

“In terms of actions going forward, in addition to the communication provided through this Field Corrective Action, which is intended to remind users of recommendations on oxygen use and clarify the appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment, the root cause and potential contributing factors are currently under investigation through a formal CAPA (Corrective Action Preventative Action) process. Olympus will take any appropriate enhancement action based on investigation results,” according to the Olympus spokeswoman.

In 2016, this news organization reported that Olympus made medical headlines by recalling its TJF-Q180V duodenoscope in the wake of Congressional investigations after the product was linked to spreading bacterial infections because of design flaws. 

United States customers can contact Olympus by phone at 1-800-848-9024 (option 1) with questions about the recall, and healthcare professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems associated with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program via an online form, regular mail, or fax.

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

A series of Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes have been recalled by the manufacturer because of a risk for burns and fire, according to a statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

However, “this recall is a correction, not a product removal,” according to the FDA. Clinicians do not need to cease using these devices, but they must be mindful of the risks and take the precautions outlined by Olympus.

“While health care providers may choose to continue using the Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes, to maximize patient safety and mitigate any potential risk to patient health, the FDA and Olympus advise users not to perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen, and carefully follow the warnings provided in the Olympus operators manual and highlighted in its October 12, 2023, letter to customers,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The recall affects Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes distributed between January 1, 2001, and September 11, 2023. According to the FDA statement, use of these devices may cause serious adverse events to patients and to clinicians. Patients treated with these devices could experience critical burns in the airways or lungs, airway bleeding, breathing difficulty, apnea, loss of consciousness, or death. Healthcare workers using the devices also may be affected in the event of combustion. 

On October 12, 2023, Olympus sent an Urgent Medical Device Corrective Action letter. This letter outlined the risks associated with the devices as follows: 

“There is a risk of endobronchial combustion if high-frequency cauterization is performed while supplying oxygen [and/or] the electrode section of the electrosurgical accessory is too close to the distal end of the endoscope.” 

To mitigate this risk, Olympus reminds clinicians to heed the warnings found in the device operations manuals, notably these three: 

• Do not perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen.
• Confirm that the electrode section of the electrosurgical device used with the endoscope is at a safe distance from the distal end of the endoscope.
• Only use the Olympus bronchoscopes with compatible high-frequency therapy equipment as described in the operations manual.

The letter also asks facilities that have purchased any of the affected bronchoscopes to ensure that all personnel are “completely knowledgeable and thoroughly aware” of the warnings stated in the operations manual, and it states that users may continue to use the devices according to the current instructions and with attention to the warnings.
 

Olympus Explains

“Olympus Corporation initiated this Field Corrective Action (FCA) to address complaints of endobronchial combustion occurring when high-frequency-compatible bronchoscopes are used during therapeutic procedures in combination with high-frequency therapy equipment,” a spokeswoman for Olympus said in an interview. 

“This corrective action was taken following a thorough assessment of adverse event complaints involving serious patient injury; Olympus takes these complaints very seriously. Patient safety is our top priority,” the spokeswoman said. “The customer notification is intended to remind users of existing warnings not to use oxygen while performing high-frequency cauterization and appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment.” 

The products are not being removed, and no labeling changes are being made at this time, she said. 

The bottom line for clinicians: “Users can continue to use Olympus bronchoscopes according to the instructions provided in the operation manual and the customer letter,” the Olympus spokeswoman told this news organization. “This is not a removal action. There are no changes to the existing operation manual regarding compatibility of bronchoscopes with high-frequency therapy equipment,” she said.

“In terms of actions going forward, in addition to the communication provided through this Field Corrective Action, which is intended to remind users of recommendations on oxygen use and clarify the appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment, the root cause and potential contributing factors are currently under investigation through a formal CAPA (Corrective Action Preventative Action) process. Olympus will take any appropriate enhancement action based on investigation results,” according to the Olympus spokeswoman.

In 2016, this news organization reported that Olympus made medical headlines by recalling its TJF-Q180V duodenoscope in the wake of Congressional investigations after the product was linked to spreading bacterial infections because of design flaws. 

United States customers can contact Olympus by phone at 1-800-848-9024 (option 1) with questions about the recall, and healthcare professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems associated with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program via an online form, regular mail, or fax.

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

A series of Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes have been recalled by the manufacturer because of a risk for burns and fire, according to a statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

However, “this recall is a correction, not a product removal,” according to the FDA. Clinicians do not need to cease using these devices, but they must be mindful of the risks and take the precautions outlined by Olympus.

“While health care providers may choose to continue using the Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes, to maximize patient safety and mitigate any potential risk to patient health, the FDA and Olympus advise users not to perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen, and carefully follow the warnings provided in the Olympus operators manual and highlighted in its October 12, 2023, letter to customers,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The recall affects Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes distributed between January 1, 2001, and September 11, 2023. According to the FDA statement, use of these devices may cause serious adverse events to patients and to clinicians. Patients treated with these devices could experience critical burns in the airways or lungs, airway bleeding, breathing difficulty, apnea, loss of consciousness, or death. Healthcare workers using the devices also may be affected in the event of combustion. 

On October 12, 2023, Olympus sent an Urgent Medical Device Corrective Action letter. This letter outlined the risks associated with the devices as follows: 

“There is a risk of endobronchial combustion if high-frequency cauterization is performed while supplying oxygen [and/or] the electrode section of the electrosurgical accessory is too close to the distal end of the endoscope.” 

To mitigate this risk, Olympus reminds clinicians to heed the warnings found in the device operations manuals, notably these three: 

• Do not perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen.
• Confirm that the electrode section of the electrosurgical device used with the endoscope is at a safe distance from the distal end of the endoscope.
• Only use the Olympus bronchoscopes with compatible high-frequency therapy equipment as described in the operations manual.

The letter also asks facilities that have purchased any of the affected bronchoscopes to ensure that all personnel are “completely knowledgeable and thoroughly aware” of the warnings stated in the operations manual, and it states that users may continue to use the devices according to the current instructions and with attention to the warnings.
 

Olympus Explains

“Olympus Corporation initiated this Field Corrective Action (FCA) to address complaints of endobronchial combustion occurring when high-frequency-compatible bronchoscopes are used during therapeutic procedures in combination with high-frequency therapy equipment,” a spokeswoman for Olympus said in an interview. 

“This corrective action was taken following a thorough assessment of adverse event complaints involving serious patient injury; Olympus takes these complaints very seriously. Patient safety is our top priority,” the spokeswoman said. “The customer notification is intended to remind users of existing warnings not to use oxygen while performing high-frequency cauterization and appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment.” 

The products are not being removed, and no labeling changes are being made at this time, she said. 

The bottom line for clinicians: “Users can continue to use Olympus bronchoscopes according to the instructions provided in the operation manual and the customer letter,” the Olympus spokeswoman told this news organization. “This is not a removal action. There are no changes to the existing operation manual regarding compatibility of bronchoscopes with high-frequency therapy equipment,” she said.

“In terms of actions going forward, in addition to the communication provided through this Field Corrective Action, which is intended to remind users of recommendations on oxygen use and clarify the appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment, the root cause and potential contributing factors are currently under investigation through a formal CAPA (Corrective Action Preventative Action) process. Olympus will take any appropriate enhancement action based on investigation results,” according to the Olympus spokeswoman.

In 2016, this news organization reported that Olympus made medical headlines by recalling its TJF-Q180V duodenoscope in the wake of Congressional investigations after the product was linked to spreading bacterial infections because of design flaws. 

United States customers can contact Olympus by phone at 1-800-848-9024 (option 1) with questions about the recall, and healthcare professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems associated with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program via an online form, regular mail, or fax.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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