Federal Practitioner

Consider popular nutritional supplements as a potential source of allergic reactions if the cause of the reaction is otherwise unknown, Alison Ehrlich, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

Sherri Holdridge

Allergens may be hidden in a range of supplement products, from colorings in vitamin C powders to some vitamins used in hair products and other products.

“In general, our patients do not tell us what supplements they are taking,” said Dr. Ehrlich, a dermatologist who practices in Washington, D.C. Antiaging, sleep, and weight loss/weight control supplements are among the most popular, she said.

Surveys have shown that many patients do not discuss supplement use with their health care providers, in part because they believe their providers would disapprove of supplement use, and patients are not educated about supplements, she said. “This is definitely an area that we should try to learn more about,” she added.

Current regulations regarding dietary supplements stem from the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which defined dietary supplements as distinct from meals but regulated them as a category of food, not as medications. Dietary supplements can be vitamins, minerals, herbs, and extracts, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“There is not a lot of safety wrapped around how supplements come onto the market,” she explained. “It is not the manufacturer’s responsibility to test these products and make sure they are safe. When they get pulled off the market, it is because safety reports are getting back to the FDA.”

Consequently, a detailed history of supplement use is important, as it may reveal possible allergens as the cause of previously unidentified reactions, she said.

Dr. Ehrlich shared a case involving a patient who claimed to have had a reaction to a “Prevage-like” product that was labeled as a crepe repair cream. Listed among the product’s ingredients was idebenone, a synthetic version of the popular antioxidant known as Coenzyme Q.
 

Be wary of vitamins

Another potential source of allergy is vitamin C supplements, which became especially popular during the pandemic as people sought additional immune system support, Dr. Ehrlich noted. “What kind of vitamin C product our patients are taking is important,” she said. For example, some vitamin C powders contain coloring agents, such as carmine. Some also contain gelatin, which may cause an allergic reaction in individuals with alpha-gal syndrome, she added.

Sally Koch Kubetin/MDedge News

In general, water-soluble vitamins such as vitamins B1 to B9, B12, and C are more likely to cause an immediate reaction, Dr. Ehrlich said. Fat-soluble vitamins, such as vitamins A, D, E, and K, are more likely to cause a delayed reaction of allergic contact dermatitis.

Dr. Ehrlich described some unusual reactions to vitamins that have been reported, including a systemic allergy associated with vitamin B1 (thiamine), burning mouth syndrome associated with vitamin B3 (nicotinate), contact urticaria associated with vitamin B5 (panthenol), systemic allergy and generalized ACD associated with vitamin E (tocopherol), and erythema multiforme–like ACD associated with vitamin K1.

Notably, vitamin B5 has been associated with ACD as an ingredient in hair products, moisturizers, and wound care products, as well as B-complex vitamins and fortified foods, Dr. Ehrlich said.

Herbs and spices can act as allergens as well. Turmeric is a spice that has become a popular supplement ingredient, she said. Turmeric and curcumin (found in turmeric) can be used as a dye for its yellow color as well as a flavoring but has been associated with allergic reactions. Another popular herbal supplement, ginkgo biloba, has been marketed as a product that improves memory and cognition. It is available in pill form and in herbal teas.

“It’s really important to think about what herbal products our patients are taking, and not just in pill form,” Dr. Ehrlich said. “We need to expand our thoughts on what the herbs are in.”
 

Consider food additives as allergens

Food additives, in the form of colorants, preservatives, or flavoring agents, can cause allergic reactions, Dr. Ehrlich noted.

The question of whether food-additive contact sensitivity has a role in the occurrence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children remains unclear, she said. However, a study published in 2020 found that 62% of children with AD had positive patch test reactions to at least one food-additive allergen, compared with 20% of children without AD. The additives responsible for the most reactions were azorubine (24.4%); formic acid (15.6%); and carmine, cochineal red, and amaranth (13.3% for each).

Common colorant culprits in allergic reactions include carmine, annatto, tartrazine, and spices (such as paprika and saffron), Dr. Ehrlich said. Carmine is used in meat to prevent photo-oxidation and to preserve a red color, and it has other uses as well, she said. Carmine has been associated with ACD, AD flares, and immediate hypersensitivity. Annatto is used in foods, including processed foods, butter, and cheese, to provide a yellow color. It is also found in some lipsticks and has been associated with urticaria and angioedema, she noted.

Food preservatives that have been associated with allergic reactions include butylated hydroxyanisole and sulfites, Dr. Ehrlich said. Sulfites are used to prevent food from turning brown, and it may be present in dried fruit, fruit juice, molasses, pickled foods, vinegar, and wine.

Reports of ACD in response to sodium metabisulfite have been increasing, she noted. Other sulfite reactions may occur with exposure to other products, such as cosmetics, body washes, and swimming pool water, she said.

Awareness of allergens in supplements is important “because the number of our patients taking supplements for different reasons is increasing” and allergens in supplements could account for flares, Dr. Ehrlich said. Clinicians should encourage patients to tell them what supplements they use. Clinicians should review the ingredients in these supplements with their patients to identify potential allergens that may be causing reactions, she advised.

Dr. Ehrlich has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consider popular nutritional supplements as a potential source of allergic reactions if the cause of the reaction is otherwise unknown, Alison Ehrlich, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

Sherri Holdridge

Allergens may be hidden in a range of supplement products, from colorings in vitamin C powders to some vitamins used in hair products and other products.

“In general, our patients do not tell us what supplements they are taking,” said Dr. Ehrlich, a dermatologist who practices in Washington, D.C. Antiaging, sleep, and weight loss/weight control supplements are among the most popular, she said.

Surveys have shown that many patients do not discuss supplement use with their health care providers, in part because they believe their providers would disapprove of supplement use, and patients are not educated about supplements, she said. “This is definitely an area that we should try to learn more about,” she added.

Current regulations regarding dietary supplements stem from the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which defined dietary supplements as distinct from meals but regulated them as a category of food, not as medications. Dietary supplements can be vitamins, minerals, herbs, and extracts, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“There is not a lot of safety wrapped around how supplements come onto the market,” she explained. “It is not the manufacturer’s responsibility to test these products and make sure they are safe. When they get pulled off the market, it is because safety reports are getting back to the FDA.”

Consequently, a detailed history of supplement use is important, as it may reveal possible allergens as the cause of previously unidentified reactions, she said.

Dr. Ehrlich shared a case involving a patient who claimed to have had a reaction to a “Prevage-like” product that was labeled as a crepe repair cream. Listed among the product’s ingredients was idebenone, a synthetic version of the popular antioxidant known as Coenzyme Q.
 

Be wary of vitamins

Another potential source of allergy is vitamin C supplements, which became especially popular during the pandemic as people sought additional immune system support, Dr. Ehrlich noted. “What kind of vitamin C product our patients are taking is important,” she said. For example, some vitamin C powders contain coloring agents, such as carmine. Some also contain gelatin, which may cause an allergic reaction in individuals with alpha-gal syndrome, she added.

Sally Koch Kubetin/MDedge News

In general, water-soluble vitamins such as vitamins B1 to B9, B12, and C are more likely to cause an immediate reaction, Dr. Ehrlich said. Fat-soluble vitamins, such as vitamins A, D, E, and K, are more likely to cause a delayed reaction of allergic contact dermatitis.

Dr. Ehrlich described some unusual reactions to vitamins that have been reported, including a systemic allergy associated with vitamin B1 (thiamine), burning mouth syndrome associated with vitamin B3 (nicotinate), contact urticaria associated with vitamin B5 (panthenol), systemic allergy and generalized ACD associated with vitamin E (tocopherol), and erythema multiforme–like ACD associated with vitamin K1.

Notably, vitamin B5 has been associated with ACD as an ingredient in hair products, moisturizers, and wound care products, as well as B-complex vitamins and fortified foods, Dr. Ehrlich said.

Herbs and spices can act as allergens as well. Turmeric is a spice that has become a popular supplement ingredient, she said. Turmeric and curcumin (found in turmeric) can be used as a dye for its yellow color as well as a flavoring but has been associated with allergic reactions. Another popular herbal supplement, ginkgo biloba, has been marketed as a product that improves memory and cognition. It is available in pill form and in herbal teas.

“It’s really important to think about what herbal products our patients are taking, and not just in pill form,” Dr. Ehrlich said. “We need to expand our thoughts on what the herbs are in.”
 

Consider food additives as allergens

Food additives, in the form of colorants, preservatives, or flavoring agents, can cause allergic reactions, Dr. Ehrlich noted.

The question of whether food-additive contact sensitivity has a role in the occurrence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children remains unclear, she said. However, a study published in 2020 found that 62% of children with AD had positive patch test reactions to at least one food-additive allergen, compared with 20% of children without AD. The additives responsible for the most reactions were azorubine (24.4%); formic acid (15.6%); and carmine, cochineal red, and amaranth (13.3% for each).

Common colorant culprits in allergic reactions include carmine, annatto, tartrazine, and spices (such as paprika and saffron), Dr. Ehrlich said. Carmine is used in meat to prevent photo-oxidation and to preserve a red color, and it has other uses as well, she said. Carmine has been associated with ACD, AD flares, and immediate hypersensitivity. Annatto is used in foods, including processed foods, butter, and cheese, to provide a yellow color. It is also found in some lipsticks and has been associated with urticaria and angioedema, she noted.

Food preservatives that have been associated with allergic reactions include butylated hydroxyanisole and sulfites, Dr. Ehrlich said. Sulfites are used to prevent food from turning brown, and it may be present in dried fruit, fruit juice, molasses, pickled foods, vinegar, and wine.

Reports of ACD in response to sodium metabisulfite have been increasing, she noted. Other sulfite reactions may occur with exposure to other products, such as cosmetics, body washes, and swimming pool water, she said.

Awareness of allergens in supplements is important “because the number of our patients taking supplements for different reasons is increasing” and allergens in supplements could account for flares, Dr. Ehrlich said. Clinicians should encourage patients to tell them what supplements they use. Clinicians should review the ingredients in these supplements with their patients to identify potential allergens that may be causing reactions, she advised.

Dr. Ehrlich has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consider popular nutritional supplements as a potential source of allergic reactions if the cause of the reaction is otherwise unknown, Alison Ehrlich, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

Sherri Holdridge

Allergens may be hidden in a range of supplement products, from colorings in vitamin C powders to some vitamins used in hair products and other products.

“In general, our patients do not tell us what supplements they are taking,” said Dr. Ehrlich, a dermatologist who practices in Washington, D.C. Antiaging, sleep, and weight loss/weight control supplements are among the most popular, she said.

Surveys have shown that many patients do not discuss supplement use with their health care providers, in part because they believe their providers would disapprove of supplement use, and patients are not educated about supplements, she said. “This is definitely an area that we should try to learn more about,” she added.

Current regulations regarding dietary supplements stem from the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which defined dietary supplements as distinct from meals but regulated them as a category of food, not as medications. Dietary supplements can be vitamins, minerals, herbs, and extracts, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“There is not a lot of safety wrapped around how supplements come onto the market,” she explained. “It is not the manufacturer’s responsibility to test these products and make sure they are safe. When they get pulled off the market, it is because safety reports are getting back to the FDA.”

Consequently, a detailed history of supplement use is important, as it may reveal possible allergens as the cause of previously unidentified reactions, she said.

Dr. Ehrlich shared a case involving a patient who claimed to have had a reaction to a “Prevage-like” product that was labeled as a crepe repair cream. Listed among the product’s ingredients was idebenone, a synthetic version of the popular antioxidant known as Coenzyme Q.
 

Be wary of vitamins

Another potential source of allergy is vitamin C supplements, which became especially popular during the pandemic as people sought additional immune system support, Dr. Ehrlich noted. “What kind of vitamin C product our patients are taking is important,” she said. For example, some vitamin C powders contain coloring agents, such as carmine. Some also contain gelatin, which may cause an allergic reaction in individuals with alpha-gal syndrome, she added.

Sally Koch Kubetin/MDedge News

In general, water-soluble vitamins such as vitamins B1 to B9, B12, and C are more likely to cause an immediate reaction, Dr. Ehrlich said. Fat-soluble vitamins, such as vitamins A, D, E, and K, are more likely to cause a delayed reaction of allergic contact dermatitis.

Dr. Ehrlich described some unusual reactions to vitamins that have been reported, including a systemic allergy associated with vitamin B1 (thiamine), burning mouth syndrome associated with vitamin B3 (nicotinate), contact urticaria associated with vitamin B5 (panthenol), systemic allergy and generalized ACD associated with vitamin E (tocopherol), and erythema multiforme–like ACD associated with vitamin K1.

Notably, vitamin B5 has been associated with ACD as an ingredient in hair products, moisturizers, and wound care products, as well as B-complex vitamins and fortified foods, Dr. Ehrlich said.

Herbs and spices can act as allergens as well. Turmeric is a spice that has become a popular supplement ingredient, she said. Turmeric and curcumin (found in turmeric) can be used as a dye for its yellow color as well as a flavoring but has been associated with allergic reactions. Another popular herbal supplement, ginkgo biloba, has been marketed as a product that improves memory and cognition. It is available in pill form and in herbal teas.

“It’s really important to think about what herbal products our patients are taking, and not just in pill form,” Dr. Ehrlich said. “We need to expand our thoughts on what the herbs are in.”
 

Consider food additives as allergens

Food additives, in the form of colorants, preservatives, or flavoring agents, can cause allergic reactions, Dr. Ehrlich noted.

The question of whether food-additive contact sensitivity has a role in the occurrence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children remains unclear, she said. However, a study published in 2020 found that 62% of children with AD had positive patch test reactions to at least one food-additive allergen, compared with 20% of children without AD. The additives responsible for the most reactions were azorubine (24.4%); formic acid (15.6%); and carmine, cochineal red, and amaranth (13.3% for each).

Common colorant culprits in allergic reactions include carmine, annatto, tartrazine, and spices (such as paprika and saffron), Dr. Ehrlich said. Carmine is used in meat to prevent photo-oxidation and to preserve a red color, and it has other uses as well, she said. Carmine has been associated with ACD, AD flares, and immediate hypersensitivity. Annatto is used in foods, including processed foods, butter, and cheese, to provide a yellow color. It is also found in some lipsticks and has been associated with urticaria and angioedema, she noted.

Food preservatives that have been associated with allergic reactions include butylated hydroxyanisole and sulfites, Dr. Ehrlich said. Sulfites are used to prevent food from turning brown, and it may be present in dried fruit, fruit juice, molasses, pickled foods, vinegar, and wine.

Reports of ACD in response to sodium metabisulfite have been increasing, she noted. Other sulfite reactions may occur with exposure to other products, such as cosmetics, body washes, and swimming pool water, she said.

Awareness of allergens in supplements is important “because the number of our patients taking supplements for different reasons is increasing” and allergens in supplements could account for flares, Dr. Ehrlich said. Clinicians should encourage patients to tell them what supplements they use. Clinicians should review the ingredients in these supplements with their patients to identify potential allergens that may be causing reactions, she advised.

Dr. Ehrlich has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-stage breast cancer patients who undergo a mastectomy and have a pathological analysis of their sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) performed during surgery are more likely to be overtreated with both axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and axillary radiation (AxRT), warned U.S. investigators.

The team studied data on more than 40,000 clinically node-negative women who underwent upfront mastectomy. Just over 8,000 patients were found to have one to two SLN, with intraoperative pathology performed in approximately one-third.

Intraoperative pathology was associated with a more than eightfold increase in the likelihood of performing both ALND and AxRT, far more than any other factor.

These results provide “evidence that a significant percentage of the mastectomy patients with limited disease in up to two SLNs may be overtreated. … simply because their pathology results are read and acted on while they are on the operating table,” said senior author Olga Kantor, MD, MS, associate program director, Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowship Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“Notably, postsurgical decisions typically involve a multidisciplinary team, including radiation oncologists, which will likely result in a more integrated overall treatment plan,” she commented in a statement.

“This study suggests that surgeons should delay ALND decision-making until a later time to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Kantor emphasized.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, and was highlighted in a premeeting press briefing.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Sarah L. Blair, MD, professor and vice chair, department of surgery, University of California San Diego Health, noted that “there is a great deal of data on deescalation in axillary surgery in patients undergoing breast conservation with radiation.”

Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the study, noted that, while there are some studies in mastectomy patients with equal oncologic results, “the topic remains more controversial.”

“This study highlights that surgeons strongly consider deescalating axillary surgery in mastectomy patients to reduce long-term complications,” she said in an interview.

“If possible, these patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary fashion ahead of time,” she emphasized.

“If surgeons send the lymph nodes for frozen section then, as this paper demonstrates, they will act on the information and perform axillary dissection for early-stage disease.”
 

Study details

At the press briefing for the study, Dr. Kantor explained that several clinical trials, including AMAROS, have already “established the safety of axillary observation or AxRT as an alternative to ALND” in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients found to have one to two positive SLN.

She noted that “mastectomy patients were included in these trials, but they made up a minority” of the populations, ranging from 9% to 18%, “and so controversy remains over the optimal axillary management” in this patient population.

Dr. Kantor said that intraoperative pathology assessment “can help avoid the need to return to the operating room for additional axillary surgery” by checking the SLN at the time.

However, acting on the results during the procedure “does not allow for multidisciplinary discussion” and can mean that patients end up having both ALND and postoperative AxRT.

“This dual approach may result in axillary overtreatment in patients who may otherwise have been eligible for axillary radiation alone,” she underlined.

Moreover, a recent survey of 680 surgeons by the ASBrS found that 52% were performing routine intraoperative pathology assessment of SLN, and 78% of those said they would perform ALND if the results came back positive.

To investigate the impact of intraoperative pathology assessment on axillary management in mastectomy patients who would have been eligible for the AMAROS trial, the team examined data from the U.S. National Cancer Database.

They included cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients who had upfront mastectomy in 2018-2019 and were found to have one to two positive SLN.

They defined intraoperative pathology assessment as:

• “Not done/not acted on” if ALND was either not performed or performed at a later date than the pathology assessment.
• “Done/acted on” if both ALND and the pathology assessment were carried out on the same day.

In addition, AxRT was defined as postmastectomy radiation to the chest wall that included radiation to the draining lymph nodes.

The researchers identified 40,467 patients, of whom 20.3% had one to two positive SLN. Among those, axillary management consisted of observation in 33.2%, ALND in 26.6%, AxRT in 22.2%, and ALND plus AxRT in 18.0%.

Overall, 37.2% of the patients underwent intraoperative pathology and 62.8% did not, 11.8% of whom later returned to the operating room for ALND.

Patients who underwent intraoperative pathology were more likely than those who did not to have cT2 disease (48.0% vs. 44.1%), lympho-vascular invasion (43.4% vs. 37.1%), two positive SLN (26.5% vs. 19.2%), and macrometastasis (87.6% vs. 64.2%, P < .001 for all).

Rates of ALND plus AxRT were significantly higher in patients who had intraoperative pathology done/acted on than in those whom intraoperative pathology was not done/not acted on, at 41.0% vs. 4.9% (P < .001).

Adjusted multivariate analysis indicated that receipt of ALND plus AxRT was significantly associated with intraoperative pathology being done/acted on vs. being not done/acted on, at an odds ratio of 8.99 (P < .001).

There were also significant associations between having both procedures and macrometastasis in the SLN, at an odds ratio vs. micrometastasis of 3.38 (P < .001), and the number of total positive SLN, at odds ratio vs. 1 of 2.14 for two nodes, 3.92 for three nodes, and 5.32 for > three nodes (P < .001 for all).

The researchers also found that lobular tumors on histologic analysis were associated with having ALND plus AxRT, at an odds ratio vs. ductal histology of 1.40 (P < .001).

No funding was declared. Dr. Kantor and Dr. Blair report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-stage breast cancer patients who undergo a mastectomy and have a pathological analysis of their sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) performed during surgery are more likely to be overtreated with both axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and axillary radiation (AxRT), warned U.S. investigators.

The team studied data on more than 40,000 clinically node-negative women who underwent upfront mastectomy. Just over 8,000 patients were found to have one to two SLN, with intraoperative pathology performed in approximately one-third.

Intraoperative pathology was associated with a more than eightfold increase in the likelihood of performing both ALND and AxRT, far more than any other factor.

These results provide “evidence that a significant percentage of the mastectomy patients with limited disease in up to two SLNs may be overtreated. … simply because their pathology results are read and acted on while they are on the operating table,” said senior author Olga Kantor, MD, MS, associate program director, Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowship Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“Notably, postsurgical decisions typically involve a multidisciplinary team, including radiation oncologists, which will likely result in a more integrated overall treatment plan,” she commented in a statement.

“This study suggests that surgeons should delay ALND decision-making until a later time to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Kantor emphasized.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, and was highlighted in a premeeting press briefing.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Sarah L. Blair, MD, professor and vice chair, department of surgery, University of California San Diego Health, noted that “there is a great deal of data on deescalation in axillary surgery in patients undergoing breast conservation with radiation.”

Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the study, noted that, while there are some studies in mastectomy patients with equal oncologic results, “the topic remains more controversial.”

“This study highlights that surgeons strongly consider deescalating axillary surgery in mastectomy patients to reduce long-term complications,” she said in an interview.

“If possible, these patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary fashion ahead of time,” she emphasized.

“If surgeons send the lymph nodes for frozen section then, as this paper demonstrates, they will act on the information and perform axillary dissection for early-stage disease.”
 

Study details

At the press briefing for the study, Dr. Kantor explained that several clinical trials, including AMAROS, have already “established the safety of axillary observation or AxRT as an alternative to ALND” in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients found to have one to two positive SLN.

She noted that “mastectomy patients were included in these trials, but they made up a minority” of the populations, ranging from 9% to 18%, “and so controversy remains over the optimal axillary management” in this patient population.

Dr. Kantor said that intraoperative pathology assessment “can help avoid the need to return to the operating room for additional axillary surgery” by checking the SLN at the time.

However, acting on the results during the procedure “does not allow for multidisciplinary discussion” and can mean that patients end up having both ALND and postoperative AxRT.

“This dual approach may result in axillary overtreatment in patients who may otherwise have been eligible for axillary radiation alone,” she underlined.

Moreover, a recent survey of 680 surgeons by the ASBrS found that 52% were performing routine intraoperative pathology assessment of SLN, and 78% of those said they would perform ALND if the results came back positive.

To investigate the impact of intraoperative pathology assessment on axillary management in mastectomy patients who would have been eligible for the AMAROS trial, the team examined data from the U.S. National Cancer Database.

They included cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients who had upfront mastectomy in 2018-2019 and were found to have one to two positive SLN.

They defined intraoperative pathology assessment as:

• “Not done/not acted on” if ALND was either not performed or performed at a later date than the pathology assessment.
• “Done/acted on” if both ALND and the pathology assessment were carried out on the same day.

In addition, AxRT was defined as postmastectomy radiation to the chest wall that included radiation to the draining lymph nodes.

The researchers identified 40,467 patients, of whom 20.3% had one to two positive SLN. Among those, axillary management consisted of observation in 33.2%, ALND in 26.6%, AxRT in 22.2%, and ALND plus AxRT in 18.0%.

Overall, 37.2% of the patients underwent intraoperative pathology and 62.8% did not, 11.8% of whom later returned to the operating room for ALND.

Patients who underwent intraoperative pathology were more likely than those who did not to have cT2 disease (48.0% vs. 44.1%), lympho-vascular invasion (43.4% vs. 37.1%), two positive SLN (26.5% vs. 19.2%), and macrometastasis (87.6% vs. 64.2%, P < .001 for all).

Rates of ALND plus AxRT were significantly higher in patients who had intraoperative pathology done/acted on than in those whom intraoperative pathology was not done/not acted on, at 41.0% vs. 4.9% (P < .001).

Adjusted multivariate analysis indicated that receipt of ALND plus AxRT was significantly associated with intraoperative pathology being done/acted on vs. being not done/acted on, at an odds ratio of 8.99 (P < .001).

There were also significant associations between having both procedures and macrometastasis in the SLN, at an odds ratio vs. micrometastasis of 3.38 (P < .001), and the number of total positive SLN, at odds ratio vs. 1 of 2.14 for two nodes, 3.92 for three nodes, and 5.32 for > three nodes (P < .001 for all).

The researchers also found that lobular tumors on histologic analysis were associated with having ALND plus AxRT, at an odds ratio vs. ductal histology of 1.40 (P < .001).

No funding was declared. Dr. Kantor and Dr. Blair report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-stage breast cancer patients who undergo a mastectomy and have a pathological analysis of their sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) performed during surgery are more likely to be overtreated with both axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and axillary radiation (AxRT), warned U.S. investigators.

The team studied data on more than 40,000 clinically node-negative women who underwent upfront mastectomy. Just over 8,000 patients were found to have one to two SLN, with intraoperative pathology performed in approximately one-third.

Intraoperative pathology was associated with a more than eightfold increase in the likelihood of performing both ALND and AxRT, far more than any other factor.

These results provide “evidence that a significant percentage of the mastectomy patients with limited disease in up to two SLNs may be overtreated. … simply because their pathology results are read and acted on while they are on the operating table,” said senior author Olga Kantor, MD, MS, associate program director, Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowship Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“Notably, postsurgical decisions typically involve a multidisciplinary team, including radiation oncologists, which will likely result in a more integrated overall treatment plan,” she commented in a statement.

“This study suggests that surgeons should delay ALND decision-making until a later time to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Kantor emphasized.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, and was highlighted in a premeeting press briefing.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Sarah L. Blair, MD, professor and vice chair, department of surgery, University of California San Diego Health, noted that “there is a great deal of data on deescalation in axillary surgery in patients undergoing breast conservation with radiation.”

Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the study, noted that, while there are some studies in mastectomy patients with equal oncologic results, “the topic remains more controversial.”

“This study highlights that surgeons strongly consider deescalating axillary surgery in mastectomy patients to reduce long-term complications,” she said in an interview.

“If possible, these patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary fashion ahead of time,” she emphasized.

“If surgeons send the lymph nodes for frozen section then, as this paper demonstrates, they will act on the information and perform axillary dissection for early-stage disease.”
 

Study details

At the press briefing for the study, Dr. Kantor explained that several clinical trials, including AMAROS, have already “established the safety of axillary observation or AxRT as an alternative to ALND” in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients found to have one to two positive SLN.

She noted that “mastectomy patients were included in these trials, but they made up a minority” of the populations, ranging from 9% to 18%, “and so controversy remains over the optimal axillary management” in this patient population.

Dr. Kantor said that intraoperative pathology assessment “can help avoid the need to return to the operating room for additional axillary surgery” by checking the SLN at the time.

However, acting on the results during the procedure “does not allow for multidisciplinary discussion” and can mean that patients end up having both ALND and postoperative AxRT.

“This dual approach may result in axillary overtreatment in patients who may otherwise have been eligible for axillary radiation alone,” she underlined.

Moreover, a recent survey of 680 surgeons by the ASBrS found that 52% were performing routine intraoperative pathology assessment of SLN, and 78% of those said they would perform ALND if the results came back positive.

To investigate the impact of intraoperative pathology assessment on axillary management in mastectomy patients who would have been eligible for the AMAROS trial, the team examined data from the U.S. National Cancer Database.

They included cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients who had upfront mastectomy in 2018-2019 and were found to have one to two positive SLN.

They defined intraoperative pathology assessment as:

• “Not done/not acted on” if ALND was either not performed or performed at a later date than the pathology assessment.
• “Done/acted on” if both ALND and the pathology assessment were carried out on the same day.

In addition, AxRT was defined as postmastectomy radiation to the chest wall that included radiation to the draining lymph nodes.

The researchers identified 40,467 patients, of whom 20.3% had one to two positive SLN. Among those, axillary management consisted of observation in 33.2%, ALND in 26.6%, AxRT in 22.2%, and ALND plus AxRT in 18.0%.

Overall, 37.2% of the patients underwent intraoperative pathology and 62.8% did not, 11.8% of whom later returned to the operating room for ALND.

Patients who underwent intraoperative pathology were more likely than those who did not to have cT2 disease (48.0% vs. 44.1%), lympho-vascular invasion (43.4% vs. 37.1%), two positive SLN (26.5% vs. 19.2%), and macrometastasis (87.6% vs. 64.2%, P < .001 for all).

Rates of ALND plus AxRT were significantly higher in patients who had intraoperative pathology done/acted on than in those whom intraoperative pathology was not done/not acted on, at 41.0% vs. 4.9% (P < .001).

Adjusted multivariate analysis indicated that receipt of ALND plus AxRT was significantly associated with intraoperative pathology being done/acted on vs. being not done/acted on, at an odds ratio of 8.99 (P < .001).

There were also significant associations between having both procedures and macrometastasis in the SLN, at an odds ratio vs. micrometastasis of 3.38 (P < .001), and the number of total positive SLN, at odds ratio vs. 1 of 2.14 for two nodes, 3.92 for three nodes, and 5.32 for > three nodes (P < .001 for all).

The researchers also found that lobular tumors on histologic analysis were associated with having ALND plus AxRT, at an odds ratio vs. ductal histology of 1.40 (P < .001).

No funding was declared. Dr. Kantor and Dr. Blair report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There is wonderful news in the field of hybrid closed-loop pump technology because the Medtronic 780G system was just approved. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me because we’ve all been waiting for this seemingly forever and ever. This isn’t just a small upgrade from the 770G. It’s a quantum leap from the 770G to the 780G. The 780G has newer algorithms, a new sensor, and a longer-lasting infusion set.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

It’s been used since 2020 in Europe, so we have good data on how well it works. Frankly, I think it works really well. We’ve seen nice improvements in [hemoglobin] A1c, time in range, other glycemic metrics, and patient satisfaction in studies done in Europe.

Now, I’ve never had the system to use in one of my patients. I always say I never know a system until I see it in use in my own patients, but let me tell you what I’ve read.

First, it has something called meal-detection technology with autocorrection boluses every 5 minutes. If this works, it can be a huge win for our patients because the problem my patients have is with mealtime dosing. They often dose late, or they may not dose enough insulin for the carbohydrates. That’s where the issues are.

All these hybrid closed-loop systems, this one included, show that the best improvements in glycemia are overnight. I’m hoping that this one shows some nice improvements in daytime glycemia as well. Stay tuned and I’ll let you know once I’ve been using it.

Next, it has adjustable targets down to 100. This is the lowest target for any hybrid closed-loop system. It has an extended-wear infusion set that lasts for 7 days. This infusion set is already available but works with this new system.

Finally, it has a new sensor. It looks like the old sensors, but it’s the Guardian 4, which requires much fewer finger sticks. Now, I’m not entirely sure about how often one has to do a finger stick. I know one has to do with finger sticking to initiate auto mode, or what they call SmartGuard, but I don’t know whether you ever have to do it again. I know for sure that you have to do it again if you fall out of the automated mode into manual mode. Once you’re in SmartGuard, I believe there are no further finger-stick calibrations required.

If people are already on the 770G system, this is just a software update that is presumably easy to upgrade to the 780G. Now, the physical pieces ... If someone doesn’t already have the Guardian 4 sensor or the extended-wear infusion set, they’ll have to get those. The software update to make the 770G increase to the 780G should just come through the cloud. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.

I do know that preorders for this system, if you want to buy the new physical system, start on May 15. The shipping of the new 780G system should occur in the United States toward the end of this summer.

I’m so excited. I think this is really going to benefit my patients. I can’t wait to start using it and letting patients see how these algorithms work and how they really help patients improve their glucose control.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There is wonderful news in the field of hybrid closed-loop pump technology because the Medtronic 780G system was just approved. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me because we’ve all been waiting for this seemingly forever and ever. This isn’t just a small upgrade from the 770G. It’s a quantum leap from the 770G to the 780G. The 780G has newer algorithms, a new sensor, and a longer-lasting infusion set.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

It’s been used since 2020 in Europe, so we have good data on how well it works. Frankly, I think it works really well. We’ve seen nice improvements in [hemoglobin] A1c, time in range, other glycemic metrics, and patient satisfaction in studies done in Europe.

Now, I’ve never had the system to use in one of my patients. I always say I never know a system until I see it in use in my own patients, but let me tell you what I’ve read.

First, it has something called meal-detection technology with autocorrection boluses every 5 minutes. If this works, it can be a huge win for our patients because the problem my patients have is with mealtime dosing. They often dose late, or they may not dose enough insulin for the carbohydrates. That’s where the issues are.

All these hybrid closed-loop systems, this one included, show that the best improvements in glycemia are overnight. I’m hoping that this one shows some nice improvements in daytime glycemia as well. Stay tuned and I’ll let you know once I’ve been using it.

Next, it has adjustable targets down to 100. This is the lowest target for any hybrid closed-loop system. It has an extended-wear infusion set that lasts for 7 days. This infusion set is already available but works with this new system.

Finally, it has a new sensor. It looks like the old sensors, but it’s the Guardian 4, which requires much fewer finger sticks. Now, I’m not entirely sure about how often one has to do a finger stick. I know one has to do with finger sticking to initiate auto mode, or what they call SmartGuard, but I don’t know whether you ever have to do it again. I know for sure that you have to do it again if you fall out of the automated mode into manual mode. Once you’re in SmartGuard, I believe there are no further finger-stick calibrations required.

If people are already on the 770G system, this is just a software update that is presumably easy to upgrade to the 780G. Now, the physical pieces ... If someone doesn’t already have the Guardian 4 sensor or the extended-wear infusion set, they’ll have to get those. The software update to make the 770G increase to the 780G should just come through the cloud. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.

I do know that preorders for this system, if you want to buy the new physical system, start on May 15. The shipping of the new 780G system should occur in the United States toward the end of this summer.

I’m so excited. I think this is really going to benefit my patients. I can’t wait to start using it and letting patients see how these algorithms work and how they really help patients improve their glucose control.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There is wonderful news in the field of hybrid closed-loop pump technology because the Medtronic 780G system was just approved. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me because we’ve all been waiting for this seemingly forever and ever. This isn’t just a small upgrade from the 770G. It’s a quantum leap from the 770G to the 780G. The 780G has newer algorithms, a new sensor, and a longer-lasting infusion set.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

It’s been used since 2020 in Europe, so we have good data on how well it works. Frankly, I think it works really well. We’ve seen nice improvements in [hemoglobin] A1c, time in range, other glycemic metrics, and patient satisfaction in studies done in Europe.

Now, I’ve never had the system to use in one of my patients. I always say I never know a system until I see it in use in my own patients, but let me tell you what I’ve read.

First, it has something called meal-detection technology with autocorrection boluses every 5 minutes. If this works, it can be a huge win for our patients because the problem my patients have is with mealtime dosing. They often dose late, or they may not dose enough insulin for the carbohydrates. That’s where the issues are.

All these hybrid closed-loop systems, this one included, show that the best improvements in glycemia are overnight. I’m hoping that this one shows some nice improvements in daytime glycemia as well. Stay tuned and I’ll let you know once I’ve been using it.

Next, it has adjustable targets down to 100. This is the lowest target for any hybrid closed-loop system. It has an extended-wear infusion set that lasts for 7 days. This infusion set is already available but works with this new system.

Finally, it has a new sensor. It looks like the old sensors, but it’s the Guardian 4, which requires much fewer finger sticks. Now, I’m not entirely sure about how often one has to do a finger stick. I know one has to do with finger sticking to initiate auto mode, or what they call SmartGuard, but I don’t know whether you ever have to do it again. I know for sure that you have to do it again if you fall out of the automated mode into manual mode. Once you’re in SmartGuard, I believe there are no further finger-stick calibrations required.

If people are already on the 770G system, this is just a software update that is presumably easy to upgrade to the 780G. Now, the physical pieces ... If someone doesn’t already have the Guardian 4 sensor or the extended-wear infusion set, they’ll have to get those. The software update to make the 770G increase to the 780G should just come through the cloud. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.

I do know that preorders for this system, if you want to buy the new physical system, start on May 15. The shipping of the new 780G system should occur in the United States toward the end of this summer.

I’m so excited. I think this is really going to benefit my patients. I can’t wait to start using it and letting patients see how these algorithms work and how they really help patients improve their glucose control.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.

The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.

But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.

“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.

“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.

A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.

Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”

Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”

The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.

One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.

Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”

The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.  

“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.

“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.

Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.” 

She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information. 

“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.

“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”

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

Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.

The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.

But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.

“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.

“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.

A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.

Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”

Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”

The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.

One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.

Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”

The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.  

“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.

“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.

Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.” 

She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information. 

“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.

“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”

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

Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.

The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.

But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.

“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.

“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.

A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.

Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”

Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”

The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.

One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.

Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”

The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.  

“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.

“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.

Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.” 

She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information. 

“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.

“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”

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

The effects of maribavir (Levtencity) for the treatment of resistant or refractory post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection persisted at 52-week follow-up in hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant patients from the pivotal phase 3 SOLSTICE trial.

Overall mortality in the 109 patients from these subcohorts from SOLSTICE was lower, compared with mortality reported for similar populations treated with conventional therapies used to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) CMV, according to findings presented in April at the annual meeting of the European Society for Bone and Marrow Transplantation.

“These results, in addition to the superior efficacy in CMV clearance observed for maribavir in SOLSTICE provide supportive evidence of the potential for the long-term benefit of maribavir treatment for post-transplant CMV infection,” Ishan Hirji, of Takeda Development Center Americas, and colleagues reported during a poster session at the meeting.

A retrospective chart review of the 41 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients and 68 solid organ transplant (SOT) patients randomized to receive maribavir showed an overall mortality rate of 15.6% at 52 weeks after initiation of treatment with the antiviral agent. Among the HSCT patients, 14 deaths occurred (34.1%), with 8 occurring during the study periods and 6 occurring during follow-up. Among the SOT patients, three deaths occurred (4.4%), all during follow-up chart review.

Causes of death included underlying disease relapse in four patients, infection other than CMV in six patients, and one case each of CMV-related factors, transplant-related factors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and septic shock. Causes of death in the SOT patients included one case each of CMV-related factors, anemia, and renal failure.

“No patients had new graft loss or retransplantation during the chart review period,” the investigators noted.

The findings are notable as CMV infection occurs in 30%-70% of HSCT recipients and 16%-56% of SOT recipients and can lead to complications, including transplant failure and death. Reported 1-year mortality rates following standard therapies for CMV range from 31% to 50%, they explained.

Patients in the SOLSTICE trial received 8 weeks of treatment and were followed for 12 additional weeks. CMV clearance at the end of treatment was 55.7% in the maribavir treatment arm versus 23.9% in a control group of patients treated with investigator choice of therapy. As reported by this news organization, the findings formed the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of maribavir in November 2021.

The current analysis included a chart review period that started 1 day after the SOLSTICE trial period and continued for 32 additional weeks.

These long-term follow-up data confirm the benefits of maribavir for the treatment of post-transplant CMV, according to the investigators, and findings from a separate study reported at the ESBMT meeting underscore the importance of the durable benefits observed with maribavir treatment.

For that retrospective study, Maria Laura Fox, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, and colleagues pooled de-identified data from 250 adult HSCT recipients with R/R CMV who were treated with agents other than maribavir at transplant centers in the United States or Europe. They aimed to “generate real-world evidence on the burden of CMV infection/disease in HSCT recipients who had refractory/resistant CMV or were intolerant to current treatments.”

Nearly 92% of patients received two or more therapies to treat CMV, and 92.2% discontinued treatment or had one or more therapy dose changes or discontinuation, and 42 patients failed to achieve clearance of the CMV index episode.

CMV recurred in 35.2% of patients, and graft failure occurred in 4% of patients, the investigators reported.

All-cause mortality was 56.0%, and mortality at 1 year after identification of R/R disease or treatment intolerance was 45.2%, they noted, adding that the study results “highlight the real-world complexities and high burden of CMV infection for HSCT recipients.”

“With available anti-CMV agents [excluding maribavir], a notable proportion of patients failed to achieve viremia clearance once developing RRI [resistant, refractory, or intolerant] CMV and/or experienced recurrence, and were at risk of adverse outcomes, including myelosuppression and mortality. There is a need for therapies that achieve and maintain CMV clearance with improved safety profiles,” they concluded.

Both studies were funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, the maker of Levtencity. Ms. Hirji is an employee of Takeda and reported stock ownership. Ms. Fox reported relationships with Sierra Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and AbbVie.

The effects of maribavir (Levtencity) for the treatment of resistant or refractory post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection persisted at 52-week follow-up in hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant patients from the pivotal phase 3 SOLSTICE trial.

Overall mortality in the 109 patients from these subcohorts from SOLSTICE was lower, compared with mortality reported for similar populations treated with conventional therapies used to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) CMV, according to findings presented in April at the annual meeting of the European Society for Bone and Marrow Transplantation.

“These results, in addition to the superior efficacy in CMV clearance observed for maribavir in SOLSTICE provide supportive evidence of the potential for the long-term benefit of maribavir treatment for post-transplant CMV infection,” Ishan Hirji, of Takeda Development Center Americas, and colleagues reported during a poster session at the meeting.

A retrospective chart review of the 41 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients and 68 solid organ transplant (SOT) patients randomized to receive maribavir showed an overall mortality rate of 15.6% at 52 weeks after initiation of treatment with the antiviral agent. Among the HSCT patients, 14 deaths occurred (34.1%), with 8 occurring during the study periods and 6 occurring during follow-up. Among the SOT patients, three deaths occurred (4.4%), all during follow-up chart review.

Causes of death included underlying disease relapse in four patients, infection other than CMV in six patients, and one case each of CMV-related factors, transplant-related factors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and septic shock. Causes of death in the SOT patients included one case each of CMV-related factors, anemia, and renal failure.

“No patients had new graft loss or retransplantation during the chart review period,” the investigators noted.

The findings are notable as CMV infection occurs in 30%-70% of HSCT recipients and 16%-56% of SOT recipients and can lead to complications, including transplant failure and death. Reported 1-year mortality rates following standard therapies for CMV range from 31% to 50%, they explained.

Patients in the SOLSTICE trial received 8 weeks of treatment and were followed for 12 additional weeks. CMV clearance at the end of treatment was 55.7% in the maribavir treatment arm versus 23.9% in a control group of patients treated with investigator choice of therapy. As reported by this news organization, the findings formed the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of maribavir in November 2021.

The current analysis included a chart review period that started 1 day after the SOLSTICE trial period and continued for 32 additional weeks.

These long-term follow-up data confirm the benefits of maribavir for the treatment of post-transplant CMV, according to the investigators, and findings from a separate study reported at the ESBMT meeting underscore the importance of the durable benefits observed with maribavir treatment.

For that retrospective study, Maria Laura Fox, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, and colleagues pooled de-identified data from 250 adult HSCT recipients with R/R CMV who were treated with agents other than maribavir at transplant centers in the United States or Europe. They aimed to “generate real-world evidence on the burden of CMV infection/disease in HSCT recipients who had refractory/resistant CMV or were intolerant to current treatments.”

Nearly 92% of patients received two or more therapies to treat CMV, and 92.2% discontinued treatment or had one or more therapy dose changes or discontinuation, and 42 patients failed to achieve clearance of the CMV index episode.

CMV recurred in 35.2% of patients, and graft failure occurred in 4% of patients, the investigators reported.

All-cause mortality was 56.0%, and mortality at 1 year after identification of R/R disease or treatment intolerance was 45.2%, they noted, adding that the study results “highlight the real-world complexities and high burden of CMV infection for HSCT recipients.”

“With available anti-CMV agents [excluding maribavir], a notable proportion of patients failed to achieve viremia clearance once developing RRI [resistant, refractory, or intolerant] CMV and/or experienced recurrence, and were at risk of adverse outcomes, including myelosuppression and mortality. There is a need for therapies that achieve and maintain CMV clearance with improved safety profiles,” they concluded.

Both studies were funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, the maker of Levtencity. Ms. Hirji is an employee of Takeda and reported stock ownership. Ms. Fox reported relationships with Sierra Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and AbbVie.

The effects of maribavir (Levtencity) for the treatment of resistant or refractory post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection persisted at 52-week follow-up in hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant patients from the pivotal phase 3 SOLSTICE trial.

Overall mortality in the 109 patients from these subcohorts from SOLSTICE was lower, compared with mortality reported for similar populations treated with conventional therapies used to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) CMV, according to findings presented in April at the annual meeting of the European Society for Bone and Marrow Transplantation.

“These results, in addition to the superior efficacy in CMV clearance observed for maribavir in SOLSTICE provide supportive evidence of the potential for the long-term benefit of maribavir treatment for post-transplant CMV infection,” Ishan Hirji, of Takeda Development Center Americas, and colleagues reported during a poster session at the meeting.

A retrospective chart review of the 41 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients and 68 solid organ transplant (SOT) patients randomized to receive maribavir showed an overall mortality rate of 15.6% at 52 weeks after initiation of treatment with the antiviral agent. Among the HSCT patients, 14 deaths occurred (34.1%), with 8 occurring during the study periods and 6 occurring during follow-up. Among the SOT patients, three deaths occurred (4.4%), all during follow-up chart review.

Causes of death included underlying disease relapse in four patients, infection other than CMV in six patients, and one case each of CMV-related factors, transplant-related factors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and septic shock. Causes of death in the SOT patients included one case each of CMV-related factors, anemia, and renal failure.

“No patients had new graft loss or retransplantation during the chart review period,” the investigators noted.

The findings are notable as CMV infection occurs in 30%-70% of HSCT recipients and 16%-56% of SOT recipients and can lead to complications, including transplant failure and death. Reported 1-year mortality rates following standard therapies for CMV range from 31% to 50%, they explained.

Patients in the SOLSTICE trial received 8 weeks of treatment and were followed for 12 additional weeks. CMV clearance at the end of treatment was 55.7% in the maribavir treatment arm versus 23.9% in a control group of patients treated with investigator choice of therapy. As reported by this news organization, the findings formed the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of maribavir in November 2021.

The current analysis included a chart review period that started 1 day after the SOLSTICE trial period and continued for 32 additional weeks.

These long-term follow-up data confirm the benefits of maribavir for the treatment of post-transplant CMV, according to the investigators, and findings from a separate study reported at the ESBMT meeting underscore the importance of the durable benefits observed with maribavir treatment.

For that retrospective study, Maria Laura Fox, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, and colleagues pooled de-identified data from 250 adult HSCT recipients with R/R CMV who were treated with agents other than maribavir at transplant centers in the United States or Europe. They aimed to “generate real-world evidence on the burden of CMV infection/disease in HSCT recipients who had refractory/resistant CMV or were intolerant to current treatments.”

Nearly 92% of patients received two or more therapies to treat CMV, and 92.2% discontinued treatment or had one or more therapy dose changes or discontinuation, and 42 patients failed to achieve clearance of the CMV index episode.

CMV recurred in 35.2% of patients, and graft failure occurred in 4% of patients, the investigators reported.

All-cause mortality was 56.0%, and mortality at 1 year after identification of R/R disease or treatment intolerance was 45.2%, they noted, adding that the study results “highlight the real-world complexities and high burden of CMV infection for HSCT recipients.”

“With available anti-CMV agents [excluding maribavir], a notable proportion of patients failed to achieve viremia clearance once developing RRI [resistant, refractory, or intolerant] CMV and/or experienced recurrence, and were at risk of adverse outcomes, including myelosuppression and mortality. There is a need for therapies that achieve and maintain CMV clearance with improved safety profiles,” they concluded.

Both studies were funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, the maker of Levtencity. Ms. Hirji is an employee of Takeda and reported stock ownership. Ms. Fox reported relationships with Sierra Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and AbbVie.

BOSTON – In emergency department stroke consultations, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) alone does not appear to be a reliable guide for ordering diagnostic tests for a large vessel occlusion (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.

For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.

“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
 

Large prospective dataset

The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.

“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.

After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.

“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.

Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.

In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.

The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
 

No consistent cutoff

In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”

These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
 

Reconsidering protocols

Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.

A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.

The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.

“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”

It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.

For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.

One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.

“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.

If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.

Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
 

BOSTON – In emergency department stroke consultations, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) alone does not appear to be a reliable guide for ordering diagnostic tests for a large vessel occlusion (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.

For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.

“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
 

Large prospective dataset

The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.

“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.

After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.

“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.

Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.

In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.

The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
 

No consistent cutoff

In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”

These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
 

Reconsidering protocols

Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.

A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.

The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.

“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”

It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.

For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.

One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.

“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.

If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.

Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
 

BOSTON – In emergency department stroke consultations, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) alone does not appear to be a reliable guide for ordering diagnostic tests for a large vessel occlusion (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.

For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.

“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
 

Large prospective dataset

The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.

“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.

After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.

“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.

Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.

In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.

The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
 

No consistent cutoff

In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”

These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
 

Reconsidering protocols

Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.

A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.

The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.

“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”

It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.

For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.

One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.

“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.

If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.

Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
 

As many as 40% of lumpectomies leave positive margins that necessitate a second surgery, but a novel fluorescent imaging agent used along with a direct visualization system may improve complete resection rates, new phase 3 findings show.

Pegulicianine (Lumisight), an investigational and activatable fluorescent imaging agent used with a novel direct visualization system, helped identify residual tumor or circumvent second surgeries in about 10% of patients in the trial.

Use of the agent and direct visualization system – both from Lumicell and currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration – could provide more complete resection for patients with early breast cancer and avert the need for reexcisions, the investigators write.

The findings were published online in NEJM Evidence and were subsequently presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Local recurrence following lumpectomy increases the risk of dying from breast cancer, and the risk of local recurrence is directly linked to inadequate tumor removal during lumpectomy. In about 20%-40% of lumpectomies, positive margins are identified after surgery.

To improve patient outcomes, investigators assessed whether a novel fluorescence-guided surgery system helped surgeons perform more complete resections during lumpectomy.

In the Novel Surgical Imaging for Tumor Excision (INSITE) trial, 392 patients were randomly assigned to undergo pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (n = 357) or standard lumpectomy (n = 35).

To prevent surgeons from performing a smaller than standard lumpectomy in anticipation of using the pegulicianine fluorescence-guided system, patients were randomly assigned to the pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery group or the control group. The groups were revealed only after the surgeon completed the standard lumpectomy.

“Randomization was not designed to provide a control group for analysis of device performance,” The authors explain. “In this study design, each patient undergoing pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery served as her own control,” they write. The investigators compared final margin pathology after standard lumpectomy and after guided surgery. Those in the control group were included in the safety analysis.

Study participants were women aged 18 years or older who were undergoing lumpectomy for stage I–III breast cancer and/or ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients received pegulicianine 1.0 mg/kg via a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2-6 hours before surgery.

The agent produces a signal at sites of residual tumor, and a handheld probe illuminates the cavity during surgery. A tumor detection algorithm then analyzes and displays the images to the surgeon in real time – an overall process that adds about 7 minutes to the operative procedure, the authors say.

Investigators identified invasive cancers in 316 patients and in situ cancers in 76 patients. Among the 357 patients in the treatment group, 27 (7.6%) were found to have residual tumor after standard lumpectomy. For 22 patients, cavity orientations were deemed negative on standard margin evaluations, the authors report.

With use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery, positive margins were converted to negative margins for 9 of 62 patients (14.5%), potentially averting a second surgery in those patients.

Overall, the authors say that pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery removed residual tumor (27 of 357) or avoided second surgeries (9 of 357) in 10% of patients in the trial.

The current trial findings confirm results regarding the safety and efficacy of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery and the direct visualization system that were reported in a prior multicenter feasibility study, the authors say.

Pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery met prespecified thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity, at 85.2%, but did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity, which was only 49.3%.

The rate of serious adverse events with pegulicianine was 0.5% (two patients), similar to that of other contrast agents. Administration of the agent was stopped because of adverse events for six patients, the investigators write.

Serious adverse events included grade 3 hypersensitivity in one patient and an anaphylactic reaction in another. The other four adverse events included an allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation. All adverse events resolved, and patients proceeded to standard lumpectomy.

Overall, the trial findings “suggest that a more complete breast cancer resection may be achieved” with pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery and the direct visualization system, lead investigator Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, director of the breast program at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in a press release. “Given the low complication rate, minimal added operative time and, most importantly, the discovery of additional cancer left behind after a lumpectomy, the Lumicell [system] has the potential to be a critical adjunct to enhance standard practice for breast cancer patients.”

The system also has the potential to reduce “the patient burden of additional surgery” and decrease “costs associated with a return to the operating room,” the authors conclude.

The INSITE trial was funded by Lumicell and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Smith reported unpaid research collaboration with Lumicell.

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

As many as 40% of lumpectomies leave positive margins that necessitate a second surgery, but a novel fluorescent imaging agent used along with a direct visualization system may improve complete resection rates, new phase 3 findings show.

Pegulicianine (Lumisight), an investigational and activatable fluorescent imaging agent used with a novel direct visualization system, helped identify residual tumor or circumvent second surgeries in about 10% of patients in the trial.

Use of the agent and direct visualization system – both from Lumicell and currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration – could provide more complete resection for patients with early breast cancer and avert the need for reexcisions, the investigators write.

The findings were published online in NEJM Evidence and were subsequently presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Local recurrence following lumpectomy increases the risk of dying from breast cancer, and the risk of local recurrence is directly linked to inadequate tumor removal during lumpectomy. In about 20%-40% of lumpectomies, positive margins are identified after surgery.

To improve patient outcomes, investigators assessed whether a novel fluorescence-guided surgery system helped surgeons perform more complete resections during lumpectomy.

In the Novel Surgical Imaging for Tumor Excision (INSITE) trial, 392 patients were randomly assigned to undergo pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (n = 357) or standard lumpectomy (n = 35).

To prevent surgeons from performing a smaller than standard lumpectomy in anticipation of using the pegulicianine fluorescence-guided system, patients were randomly assigned to the pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery group or the control group. The groups were revealed only after the surgeon completed the standard lumpectomy.

“Randomization was not designed to provide a control group for analysis of device performance,” The authors explain. “In this study design, each patient undergoing pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery served as her own control,” they write. The investigators compared final margin pathology after standard lumpectomy and after guided surgery. Those in the control group were included in the safety analysis.

Study participants were women aged 18 years or older who were undergoing lumpectomy for stage I–III breast cancer and/or ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients received pegulicianine 1.0 mg/kg via a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2-6 hours before surgery.

The agent produces a signal at sites of residual tumor, and a handheld probe illuminates the cavity during surgery. A tumor detection algorithm then analyzes and displays the images to the surgeon in real time – an overall process that adds about 7 minutes to the operative procedure, the authors say.

Investigators identified invasive cancers in 316 patients and in situ cancers in 76 patients. Among the 357 patients in the treatment group, 27 (7.6%) were found to have residual tumor after standard lumpectomy. For 22 patients, cavity orientations were deemed negative on standard margin evaluations, the authors report.

With use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery, positive margins were converted to negative margins for 9 of 62 patients (14.5%), potentially averting a second surgery in those patients.

Overall, the authors say that pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery removed residual tumor (27 of 357) or avoided second surgeries (9 of 357) in 10% of patients in the trial.

The current trial findings confirm results regarding the safety and efficacy of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery and the direct visualization system that were reported in a prior multicenter feasibility study, the authors say.

Pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery met prespecified thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity, at 85.2%, but did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity, which was only 49.3%.

The rate of serious adverse events with pegulicianine was 0.5% (two patients), similar to that of other contrast agents. Administration of the agent was stopped because of adverse events for six patients, the investigators write.

Serious adverse events included grade 3 hypersensitivity in one patient and an anaphylactic reaction in another. The other four adverse events included an allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation. All adverse events resolved, and patients proceeded to standard lumpectomy.

Overall, the trial findings “suggest that a more complete breast cancer resection may be achieved” with pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery and the direct visualization system, lead investigator Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, director of the breast program at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in a press release. “Given the low complication rate, minimal added operative time and, most importantly, the discovery of additional cancer left behind after a lumpectomy, the Lumicell [system] has the potential to be a critical adjunct to enhance standard practice for breast cancer patients.”

The system also has the potential to reduce “the patient burden of additional surgery” and decrease “costs associated with a return to the operating room,” the authors conclude.

The INSITE trial was funded by Lumicell and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Smith reported unpaid research collaboration with Lumicell.

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

As many as 40% of lumpectomies leave positive margins that necessitate a second surgery, but a novel fluorescent imaging agent used along with a direct visualization system may improve complete resection rates, new phase 3 findings show.

Pegulicianine (Lumisight), an investigational and activatable fluorescent imaging agent used with a novel direct visualization system, helped identify residual tumor or circumvent second surgeries in about 10% of patients in the trial.

Use of the agent and direct visualization system – both from Lumicell and currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration – could provide more complete resection for patients with early breast cancer and avert the need for reexcisions, the investigators write.

The findings were published online in NEJM Evidence and were subsequently presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Local recurrence following lumpectomy increases the risk of dying from breast cancer, and the risk of local recurrence is directly linked to inadequate tumor removal during lumpectomy. In about 20%-40% of lumpectomies, positive margins are identified after surgery.

To improve patient outcomes, investigators assessed whether a novel fluorescence-guided surgery system helped surgeons perform more complete resections during lumpectomy.

In the Novel Surgical Imaging for Tumor Excision (INSITE) trial, 392 patients were randomly assigned to undergo pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (n = 357) or standard lumpectomy (n = 35).

To prevent surgeons from performing a smaller than standard lumpectomy in anticipation of using the pegulicianine fluorescence-guided system, patients were randomly assigned to the pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery group or the control group. The groups were revealed only after the surgeon completed the standard lumpectomy.

“Randomization was not designed to provide a control group for analysis of device performance,” The authors explain. “In this study design, each patient undergoing pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery served as her own control,” they write. The investigators compared final margin pathology after standard lumpectomy and after guided surgery. Those in the control group were included in the safety analysis.

Study participants were women aged 18 years or older who were undergoing lumpectomy for stage I–III breast cancer and/or ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients received pegulicianine 1.0 mg/kg via a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2-6 hours before surgery.

The agent produces a signal at sites of residual tumor, and a handheld probe illuminates the cavity during surgery. A tumor detection algorithm then analyzes and displays the images to the surgeon in real time – an overall process that adds about 7 minutes to the operative procedure, the authors say.

Investigators identified invasive cancers in 316 patients and in situ cancers in 76 patients. Among the 357 patients in the treatment group, 27 (7.6%) were found to have residual tumor after standard lumpectomy. For 22 patients, cavity orientations were deemed negative on standard margin evaluations, the authors report.

With use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery, positive margins were converted to negative margins for 9 of 62 patients (14.5%), potentially averting a second surgery in those patients.

Overall, the authors say that pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery removed residual tumor (27 of 357) or avoided second surgeries (9 of 357) in 10% of patients in the trial.

The current trial findings confirm results regarding the safety and efficacy of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery and the direct visualization system that were reported in a prior multicenter feasibility study, the authors say.

Pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery met prespecified thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity, at 85.2%, but did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity, which was only 49.3%.

The rate of serious adverse events with pegulicianine was 0.5% (two patients), similar to that of other contrast agents. Administration of the agent was stopped because of adverse events for six patients, the investigators write.

Serious adverse events included grade 3 hypersensitivity in one patient and an anaphylactic reaction in another. The other four adverse events included an allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation. All adverse events resolved, and patients proceeded to standard lumpectomy.

Overall, the trial findings “suggest that a more complete breast cancer resection may be achieved” with pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery and the direct visualization system, lead investigator Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, director of the breast program at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in a press release. “Given the low complication rate, minimal added operative time and, most importantly, the discovery of additional cancer left behind after a lumpectomy, the Lumicell [system] has the potential to be a critical adjunct to enhance standard practice for breast cancer patients.”

The system also has the potential to reduce “the patient burden of additional surgery” and decrease “costs associated with a return to the operating room,” the authors conclude.

The INSITE trial was funded by Lumicell and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Smith reported unpaid research collaboration with Lumicell.

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

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

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

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

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

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

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

The U.S. federal government wrote duplicate checks to private doctors who treated veterans, costing taxpayers up to $128 million in extra payments over 5 years, a new report by a federal watchdog revealed in April.
 

Private doctors were paid twice in nearly 300,000 cases from 2017 to 2021 involving veterans who were eligible for Veterans Health Administration and Medicare benefits, according to the report by the Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General.

The doctors were paid by Medicare for medical services that the VHA had authorized and already paid for, the OIG reported after it conducted a 5-year audit.

Duplicate Medicare payments have doubled from $22 million in 2019 when the Veterans Community Care Program was implemented to $45 million in 2021, according to the OIG report. The program allows veterans to seek care from private doctors when the VHA can’t provide the care they need.

Roughly 1.9 million veterans every year receive government-paid health care from private doctors.

The OIG said it decided to audit Medicare’s claims because “duplicate payments were a long-standing issue.”

The problem dates back to a 1979 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report that found Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs VHA made duplicate payments of more than $72,000 for certain medical services provided to veterans, the OIG reported.

The HHS OIG’s audit examined $19.2 billion in Medicare payments for 36 million claims for individuals who enrolled in Medicare and were eligible for VA services. About 90% of those claims were for doctor evaluations and visits, according to the OIG report.

The OIG found “these duplicate payments occurred because CMS did not implement controls to address duplicate payments for services provided to individuals with Medicare and VHA benefits.”

Specifically, the OIG found that the CMS and the VHA were not sharing enrollment, claims, and payment data with each other, as required by federal law.

If CMS had access to that information, the agency could have compared the VHA claims data with existing Medicare claims data to identify duplicate claims, the OIG claimed.

The OIG recommended that CMS take the following four steps to fix the problem, which CMS has agreed to do, according to the report:

• Integrate VHA enrollment, claims, and payment data into the CMS centralized claims data system so it can identify potential fraud, waste, and abuse under the Medicare program.
• Issue guidance to medical professionals on not billing Medicare for a medical service that was authorized by the VHA.
• Establish a comprehensive data-sharing agreement with the VHA.
• Establish an internal process (such as system edits) to address duplicate payments.