News

Drinking just one alcoholic beverage a day is enough to raise blood pressure (BP) in healthy adults, results of a “dose-response” meta-analysis suggest.

“A vexing question has been whether usual intake of small amounts of alcohol is associated with a higher level of BP. We identified a continuous, more or less linear association, with no evidence of a threshold for the association,” study coauthor Paul Whelton, MD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

copyright Fuse/Thinkstock

For systolic BP (SBP), “the most important BP risk indicator for CVD [cardiovascular disease], the association was robust, being present in both men and women and in both North America as well as Asia,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Based on the results, “the lower the better, and no consumption even better, as we did not find any indication that human health may benefit from consumption of very small amounts of alcohol,” senior author Marco Vinceti, MD, PhD, of University of Modena and Reggio Emilia University in Italy, told this news organization.

“Clearly, alcohol is not the only or necessarily the main determinant of high blood pressure, and the effects of small intakes of alcohol emerging from our pooled analysis were certainly not biologically as relevant and meaningful as those induced by high intakes,” Dr. Vinceti added.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

The researchers analyzed data from seven large, observational studies conducted in the United States, Korea, and Japan involving 19,548 adults (65% men).

Participants ranged in age from 20 years to the early 70s at baseline and were followed for a median of 5.3 years (range, 4-12 years). None of the participants had previously been diagnosed with hypertension or other CVD, diabetes, liver disease, alcoholism, or binge drinking.

Compared with nondrinkers, SBP was 1.25 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 4.90 mm Hg in adults consuming an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

For reference, in the United States, 12 ounces of regular beer, 5 ounces of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of distilled spirits contains about 14 grams of alcohol.

Diastolic BP (DBP) was 1.14 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 3.10 mm Hg in those who consumed an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

Subgroup analyses by gender showed an almost linear association between baseline alcohol intake and SBP changes in men and women and for DBP in men, while in women, there was an inverted U-shaped association.
 

No safe level

“From a BP perspective, it’s best to avoid alcohol intake. This is what the WHO [World Health Organization] recommends,” Dr. Whelton said.

“If someone is already drinking alcohol and does not want to stop doing so, minimizing alcohol consumption is desirable; many guidelines recommend not starting to drink alcohol but in those already drinking alcohol, consumption of two or less standard drinks per day for men and one or less standard drinks of alcohol per day for women,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Commenting on the study for this article, Alberto Ascherio, MD, of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said it’s been known for more than 30 years that alcohol intake is associated with increased systolic and diastolic BP. The added value of this new study is a “refinement of the estimate of the dose response.”

Dr. Ascherio noted that “moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a modest increase in risk of cancer, but, in spite of the adverse association with BP, with a potentially beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease.” However, “the causality of the latter association has been questioned, but there is no consensus on this.”

Also weighing in, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said this new study represents “yet another piece of evidence suggesting that there simply is no ‘healthy’ amount of alcohol use in humans.

“Even small amounts of alcohol intake can have negative health effects, as demonstrated in this study,” Dr. Brennan said. “There is still a widely held belief among people that drinking in moderation is good for you. It is becoming more and more clear that this is simply not the case. As health authorities grapple with drinking ‘recommendations,’ additional datasets like these will be helpful.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Whelton, Dr. Vinceti, Dr. Ascherio, and Dr. Brennan have no relevant disclosures.

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

Drinking just one alcoholic beverage a day is enough to raise blood pressure (BP) in healthy adults, results of a “dose-response” meta-analysis suggest.

“A vexing question has been whether usual intake of small amounts of alcohol is associated with a higher level of BP. We identified a continuous, more or less linear association, with no evidence of a threshold for the association,” study coauthor Paul Whelton, MD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

copyright Fuse/Thinkstock

For systolic BP (SBP), “the most important BP risk indicator for CVD [cardiovascular disease], the association was robust, being present in both men and women and in both North America as well as Asia,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Based on the results, “the lower the better, and no consumption even better, as we did not find any indication that human health may benefit from consumption of very small amounts of alcohol,” senior author Marco Vinceti, MD, PhD, of University of Modena and Reggio Emilia University in Italy, told this news organization.

“Clearly, alcohol is not the only or necessarily the main determinant of high blood pressure, and the effects of small intakes of alcohol emerging from our pooled analysis were certainly not biologically as relevant and meaningful as those induced by high intakes,” Dr. Vinceti added.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

The researchers analyzed data from seven large, observational studies conducted in the United States, Korea, and Japan involving 19,548 adults (65% men).

Participants ranged in age from 20 years to the early 70s at baseline and were followed for a median of 5.3 years (range, 4-12 years). None of the participants had previously been diagnosed with hypertension or other CVD, diabetes, liver disease, alcoholism, or binge drinking.

Compared with nondrinkers, SBP was 1.25 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 4.90 mm Hg in adults consuming an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

For reference, in the United States, 12 ounces of regular beer, 5 ounces of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of distilled spirits contains about 14 grams of alcohol.

Diastolic BP (DBP) was 1.14 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 3.10 mm Hg in those who consumed an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

Subgroup analyses by gender showed an almost linear association between baseline alcohol intake and SBP changes in men and women and for DBP in men, while in women, there was an inverted U-shaped association.
 

No safe level

“From a BP perspective, it’s best to avoid alcohol intake. This is what the WHO [World Health Organization] recommends,” Dr. Whelton said.

“If someone is already drinking alcohol and does not want to stop doing so, minimizing alcohol consumption is desirable; many guidelines recommend not starting to drink alcohol but in those already drinking alcohol, consumption of two or less standard drinks per day for men and one or less standard drinks of alcohol per day for women,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Commenting on the study for this article, Alberto Ascherio, MD, of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said it’s been known for more than 30 years that alcohol intake is associated with increased systolic and diastolic BP. The added value of this new study is a “refinement of the estimate of the dose response.”

Dr. Ascherio noted that “moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a modest increase in risk of cancer, but, in spite of the adverse association with BP, with a potentially beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease.” However, “the causality of the latter association has been questioned, but there is no consensus on this.”

Also weighing in, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said this new study represents “yet another piece of evidence suggesting that there simply is no ‘healthy’ amount of alcohol use in humans.

“Even small amounts of alcohol intake can have negative health effects, as demonstrated in this study,” Dr. Brennan said. “There is still a widely held belief among people that drinking in moderation is good for you. It is becoming more and more clear that this is simply not the case. As health authorities grapple with drinking ‘recommendations,’ additional datasets like these will be helpful.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Whelton, Dr. Vinceti, Dr. Ascherio, and Dr. Brennan have no relevant disclosures.

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

Drinking just one alcoholic beverage a day is enough to raise blood pressure (BP) in healthy adults, results of a “dose-response” meta-analysis suggest.

“A vexing question has been whether usual intake of small amounts of alcohol is associated with a higher level of BP. We identified a continuous, more or less linear association, with no evidence of a threshold for the association,” study coauthor Paul Whelton, MD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

copyright Fuse/Thinkstock

For systolic BP (SBP), “the most important BP risk indicator for CVD [cardiovascular disease], the association was robust, being present in both men and women and in both North America as well as Asia,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Based on the results, “the lower the better, and no consumption even better, as we did not find any indication that human health may benefit from consumption of very small amounts of alcohol,” senior author Marco Vinceti, MD, PhD, of University of Modena and Reggio Emilia University in Italy, told this news organization.

“Clearly, alcohol is not the only or necessarily the main determinant of high blood pressure, and the effects of small intakes of alcohol emerging from our pooled analysis were certainly not biologically as relevant and meaningful as those induced by high intakes,” Dr. Vinceti added.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

The researchers analyzed data from seven large, observational studies conducted in the United States, Korea, and Japan involving 19,548 adults (65% men).

Participants ranged in age from 20 years to the early 70s at baseline and were followed for a median of 5.3 years (range, 4-12 years). None of the participants had previously been diagnosed with hypertension or other CVD, diabetes, liver disease, alcoholism, or binge drinking.

Compared with nondrinkers, SBP was 1.25 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 4.90 mm Hg in adults consuming an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

For reference, in the United States, 12 ounces of regular beer, 5 ounces of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of distilled spirits contains about 14 grams of alcohol.

Diastolic BP (DBP) was 1.14 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 3.10 mm Hg in those who consumed an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

Subgroup analyses by gender showed an almost linear association between baseline alcohol intake and SBP changes in men and women and for DBP in men, while in women, there was an inverted U-shaped association.
 

No safe level

“From a BP perspective, it’s best to avoid alcohol intake. This is what the WHO [World Health Organization] recommends,” Dr. Whelton said.

“If someone is already drinking alcohol and does not want to stop doing so, minimizing alcohol consumption is desirable; many guidelines recommend not starting to drink alcohol but in those already drinking alcohol, consumption of two or less standard drinks per day for men and one or less standard drinks of alcohol per day for women,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Commenting on the study for this article, Alberto Ascherio, MD, of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said it’s been known for more than 30 years that alcohol intake is associated with increased systolic and diastolic BP. The added value of this new study is a “refinement of the estimate of the dose response.”

Dr. Ascherio noted that “moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a modest increase in risk of cancer, but, in spite of the adverse association with BP, with a potentially beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease.” However, “the causality of the latter association has been questioned, but there is no consensus on this.”

Also weighing in, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said this new study represents “yet another piece of evidence suggesting that there simply is no ‘healthy’ amount of alcohol use in humans.

“Even small amounts of alcohol intake can have negative health effects, as demonstrated in this study,” Dr. Brennan said. “There is still a widely held belief among people that drinking in moderation is good for you. It is becoming more and more clear that this is simply not the case. As health authorities grapple with drinking ‘recommendations,’ additional datasets like these will be helpful.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Whelton, Dr. Vinceti, Dr. Ascherio, and Dr. Brennan have no relevant disclosures.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to become long-term survivors of the disease now than they were 20 years ago, a new study found.

Researchers at the University of Oxford (England) conducted an observational study that examined case fatality rates for women with breast cancer and found that the prognosis for women has “improved substantially” over the past few decades. For women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer during the 1990s, the risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis was just over 14% on average. For women diagnosed during the 2010s, it was nearly 5% on average.

“The take-home message in our study is that it’s good news for women who are diagnosed with early breast cancer today because most of them can expect to become long-term cancer survivors, and so I think our results are reassuring,” said lead study author Carolyn Taylor, DPhil, a clinical oncologist from the Nuffield Department Of Population Health, University of Oxford.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

Although breast cancer survival has improved, recent estimates don’t incorporate detailed data on age, tumor size, tumor grade, and nodal and receptor status. In the current population-based study, researchers explored improvement in survival from early-stage breast cancer. They used nine patient and tumor characteristics as factors in their analysis.

The study is based on data from the National Cancer Registration for 512,447 women in England who were diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2015. Women were broken into four groups: those diagnosed during 1993-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2015.

The study focused on women who initially underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy as their first treatment. Data included age, tumor size, tumor grade, number of positive nodes, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. For women who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015, HER2 status was included. Data regarding recurrence, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and patients who were diagnosed with more than one cancer were not included.

The major finding: Among women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, the risk of dying decreased almost threefold between 1993 and 2015. The 5-year cumulative case fatality risk was 14.4% for women diagnosed in the 1990s (1993-1999) versus 4.9% for women diagnosed about 2 decades later (2010-2015).

Dr. Taylor and colleagues found that the case fatality rate was highest during the 5 years after diagnosis; within those years, the rates typically increased during the first 2 years, peaked during the third, and declined thereafter.

The 5-year risk of death, however, varied widely among women in the population. For most (62.8%) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, the case fatality risk was 3% or less; however, for a small subset of women (4.6%), the risk reached 20% or higher.

Patients with ER-negative tumors tended to have worse prognoses in the first decade following their diagnosis. Overall, higher tumor size and grade, more positive nodes, and older age tended to be associated with worse prognoses.

Overall, the annual case fatality rates decreased over time in nearly every patient group.

While Dr. Taylor said these findings are encouraging, she added that the investigators did not analyze why survival rates have improved over 2 decades.

“We didn’t explain how much of the improvement was due to advances treatments, improved screening rates, etc,” Dr. Taylor said. Another limitation is that data on recurrence were not available.

Kathy Miller, MD, who specializes in breast cancer at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the 5-year mark for survival is great news for some patients with breast cancer but that the time frame doesn’t apply to all.

While the risk of case fatality from breast cancer may be higher during the first 5 years after diagnosis, Dr. Miller said that is not the case for women with ER-positive breast cancer. In the study, the researchers highlighted this trend for ER status: before the 10-year mark, survival rates for women with ER-positive disease were better, but after the 10-year mark, those with ER-negative tumors seemed to fare slightly better.

“Many patients have heard this very arbitrary 5-year mark, and for patients with ER-positive disease, that 5-year mark has no meaning, because their risk in any given year is very low and it stays at that very low consistent level for at least 15 years, probably longer,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “I think a better way to think about this for ER-positive patients is that every day that goes by without a problem makes it a tiny bit less likely that you will ever have a problem.”

The authors took a similar view for the overall population, concluding that, “although deaths from breast cancer will continue to occur beyond this [5-year mark], the risk during each subsequent 5-year period is likely to be lower than during the first 5 years.”

The research was funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the University of Oxford. Some study authors received support for several of these institutions, but they reported no financial relationships with organizations that might have had an interest in the submitted work during the previous 3 years.

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

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to become long-term survivors of the disease now than they were 20 years ago, a new study found.

Researchers at the University of Oxford (England) conducted an observational study that examined case fatality rates for women with breast cancer and found that the prognosis for women has “improved substantially” over the past few decades. For women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer during the 1990s, the risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis was just over 14% on average. For women diagnosed during the 2010s, it was nearly 5% on average.

“The take-home message in our study is that it’s good news for women who are diagnosed with early breast cancer today because most of them can expect to become long-term cancer survivors, and so I think our results are reassuring,” said lead study author Carolyn Taylor, DPhil, a clinical oncologist from the Nuffield Department Of Population Health, University of Oxford.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

Although breast cancer survival has improved, recent estimates don’t incorporate detailed data on age, tumor size, tumor grade, and nodal and receptor status. In the current population-based study, researchers explored improvement in survival from early-stage breast cancer. They used nine patient and tumor characteristics as factors in their analysis.

The study is based on data from the National Cancer Registration for 512,447 women in England who were diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2015. Women were broken into four groups: those diagnosed during 1993-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2015.

The study focused on women who initially underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy as their first treatment. Data included age, tumor size, tumor grade, number of positive nodes, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. For women who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015, HER2 status was included. Data regarding recurrence, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and patients who were diagnosed with more than one cancer were not included.

The major finding: Among women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, the risk of dying decreased almost threefold between 1993 and 2015. The 5-year cumulative case fatality risk was 14.4% for women diagnosed in the 1990s (1993-1999) versus 4.9% for women diagnosed about 2 decades later (2010-2015).

Dr. Taylor and colleagues found that the case fatality rate was highest during the 5 years after diagnosis; within those years, the rates typically increased during the first 2 years, peaked during the third, and declined thereafter.

The 5-year risk of death, however, varied widely among women in the population. For most (62.8%) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, the case fatality risk was 3% or less; however, for a small subset of women (4.6%), the risk reached 20% or higher.

Patients with ER-negative tumors tended to have worse prognoses in the first decade following their diagnosis. Overall, higher tumor size and grade, more positive nodes, and older age tended to be associated with worse prognoses.

Overall, the annual case fatality rates decreased over time in nearly every patient group.

While Dr. Taylor said these findings are encouraging, she added that the investigators did not analyze why survival rates have improved over 2 decades.

“We didn’t explain how much of the improvement was due to advances treatments, improved screening rates, etc,” Dr. Taylor said. Another limitation is that data on recurrence were not available.

Kathy Miller, MD, who specializes in breast cancer at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the 5-year mark for survival is great news for some patients with breast cancer but that the time frame doesn’t apply to all.

While the risk of case fatality from breast cancer may be higher during the first 5 years after diagnosis, Dr. Miller said that is not the case for women with ER-positive breast cancer. In the study, the researchers highlighted this trend for ER status: before the 10-year mark, survival rates for women with ER-positive disease were better, but after the 10-year mark, those with ER-negative tumors seemed to fare slightly better.

“Many patients have heard this very arbitrary 5-year mark, and for patients with ER-positive disease, that 5-year mark has no meaning, because their risk in any given year is very low and it stays at that very low consistent level for at least 15 years, probably longer,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “I think a better way to think about this for ER-positive patients is that every day that goes by without a problem makes it a tiny bit less likely that you will ever have a problem.”

The authors took a similar view for the overall population, concluding that, “although deaths from breast cancer will continue to occur beyond this [5-year mark], the risk during each subsequent 5-year period is likely to be lower than during the first 5 years.”

The research was funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the University of Oxford. Some study authors received support for several of these institutions, but they reported no financial relationships with organizations that might have had an interest in the submitted work during the previous 3 years.

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

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to become long-term survivors of the disease now than they were 20 years ago, a new study found.

Researchers at the University of Oxford (England) conducted an observational study that examined case fatality rates for women with breast cancer and found that the prognosis for women has “improved substantially” over the past few decades. For women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer during the 1990s, the risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis was just over 14% on average. For women diagnosed during the 2010s, it was nearly 5% on average.

“The take-home message in our study is that it’s good news for women who are diagnosed with early breast cancer today because most of them can expect to become long-term cancer survivors, and so I think our results are reassuring,” said lead study author Carolyn Taylor, DPhil, a clinical oncologist from the Nuffield Department Of Population Health, University of Oxford.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

Although breast cancer survival has improved, recent estimates don’t incorporate detailed data on age, tumor size, tumor grade, and nodal and receptor status. In the current population-based study, researchers explored improvement in survival from early-stage breast cancer. They used nine patient and tumor characteristics as factors in their analysis.

The study is based on data from the National Cancer Registration for 512,447 women in England who were diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2015. Women were broken into four groups: those diagnosed during 1993-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2015.

The study focused on women who initially underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy as their first treatment. Data included age, tumor size, tumor grade, number of positive nodes, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. For women who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015, HER2 status was included. Data regarding recurrence, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and patients who were diagnosed with more than one cancer were not included.

The major finding: Among women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, the risk of dying decreased almost threefold between 1993 and 2015. The 5-year cumulative case fatality risk was 14.4% for women diagnosed in the 1990s (1993-1999) versus 4.9% for women diagnosed about 2 decades later (2010-2015).

Dr. Taylor and colleagues found that the case fatality rate was highest during the 5 years after diagnosis; within those years, the rates typically increased during the first 2 years, peaked during the third, and declined thereafter.

The 5-year risk of death, however, varied widely among women in the population. For most (62.8%) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, the case fatality risk was 3% or less; however, for a small subset of women (4.6%), the risk reached 20% or higher.

Patients with ER-negative tumors tended to have worse prognoses in the first decade following their diagnosis. Overall, higher tumor size and grade, more positive nodes, and older age tended to be associated with worse prognoses.

Overall, the annual case fatality rates decreased over time in nearly every patient group.

While Dr. Taylor said these findings are encouraging, she added that the investigators did not analyze why survival rates have improved over 2 decades.

“We didn’t explain how much of the improvement was due to advances treatments, improved screening rates, etc,” Dr. Taylor said. Another limitation is that data on recurrence were not available.

Kathy Miller, MD, who specializes in breast cancer at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the 5-year mark for survival is great news for some patients with breast cancer but that the time frame doesn’t apply to all.

While the risk of case fatality from breast cancer may be higher during the first 5 years after diagnosis, Dr. Miller said that is not the case for women with ER-positive breast cancer. In the study, the researchers highlighted this trend for ER status: before the 10-year mark, survival rates for women with ER-positive disease were better, but after the 10-year mark, those with ER-negative tumors seemed to fare slightly better.

“Many patients have heard this very arbitrary 5-year mark, and for patients with ER-positive disease, that 5-year mark has no meaning, because their risk in any given year is very low and it stays at that very low consistent level for at least 15 years, probably longer,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “I think a better way to think about this for ER-positive patients is that every day that goes by without a problem makes it a tiny bit less likely that you will ever have a problem.”

The authors took a similar view for the overall population, concluding that, “although deaths from breast cancer will continue to occur beyond this [5-year mark], the risk during each subsequent 5-year period is likely to be lower than during the first 5 years.”

The research was funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the University of Oxford. Some study authors received support for several of these institutions, but they reported no financial relationships with organizations that might have had an interest in the submitted work during the previous 3 years.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

GE HealthCare is recalling 7,559 TruSignal arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) sensors because of problems that may reduce defibrillation energy, expose patients to unintended voltage, or give inaccurate readings.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type. The company has not received any reports of patient injury or deaths as a result of these issues.*

The recall includes the TruSignal Adult Pediatric Sensor, TruSignal AllFit Sensor, TruSignal Sensitive Skin Sensor, TruSignal Wrap Sensor, TruSignal Ear Sensor, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor with GE Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, and TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Ohmeda Connector.

The sensors were distributed in the United States from Jan. 1, 2021, to March 4, 2023.

According to the recall notice, the malfunctioning sensors “may reduce the amount of energy sent to the heart during defibrillation without any notification to the care provider, which could prevent delivery of lifesaving therapy in a critical situation.

“This issue is most hazardous to hospitalized patients who may need defibrillation for cardiac arrest. Affected sensors may also unintentionally expose patients to electrical currents from other sources or may provide inaccurate measurements of SpO₂, which can impact treatment decisions,” the notice warns.

In an urgent device correction letter sent to health care professionals in May, GE HealthCare recommends that health care professionals do the following:

• Use an alternate method for SpO₂ monitoring, including TruSignal sensors not impacted or an alternate SpO₂ device.
• If alternate methods are not available, use affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors as long as they have not been saturated with fluids.
• If defibrillation is necessary when affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors are being used, remove the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor, defibrillate per hospital protocol, and reattach the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor after defibrillation is no longer needed.
• For Adult/Pediatric SpO₂ sensors, confirm that material does not cover the emitter or detector before using.
• Discard the sensor and use another sensor if any additional material is present.
• Make sure all potential users are made aware of this safety notification and the recommended actions, and retain this notice.

Customers are also asked to complete and return the acknowledgment form attached to the notice to Recall.39004@ge.com.

For questions or concerns about this recall, contact GE HealthCare Service at 1-800-437-1171 or a local service representative.

Health care professionals can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

*Correction, 8/3/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the reports received by the company.

GE HealthCare is recalling 7,559 TruSignal arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) sensors because of problems that may reduce defibrillation energy, expose patients to unintended voltage, or give inaccurate readings.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type. The company has not received any reports of patient injury or deaths as a result of these issues.*

The recall includes the TruSignal Adult Pediatric Sensor, TruSignal AllFit Sensor, TruSignal Sensitive Skin Sensor, TruSignal Wrap Sensor, TruSignal Ear Sensor, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor with GE Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, and TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Ohmeda Connector.

The sensors were distributed in the United States from Jan. 1, 2021, to March 4, 2023.

According to the recall notice, the malfunctioning sensors “may reduce the amount of energy sent to the heart during defibrillation without any notification to the care provider, which could prevent delivery of lifesaving therapy in a critical situation.

“This issue is most hazardous to hospitalized patients who may need defibrillation for cardiac arrest. Affected sensors may also unintentionally expose patients to electrical currents from other sources or may provide inaccurate measurements of SpO₂, which can impact treatment decisions,” the notice warns.

In an urgent device correction letter sent to health care professionals in May, GE HealthCare recommends that health care professionals do the following:

• Use an alternate method for SpO₂ monitoring, including TruSignal sensors not impacted or an alternate SpO₂ device.
• If alternate methods are not available, use affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors as long as they have not been saturated with fluids.
• If defibrillation is necessary when affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors are being used, remove the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor, defibrillate per hospital protocol, and reattach the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor after defibrillation is no longer needed.
• For Adult/Pediatric SpO₂ sensors, confirm that material does not cover the emitter or detector before using.
• Discard the sensor and use another sensor if any additional material is present.
• Make sure all potential users are made aware of this safety notification and the recommended actions, and retain this notice.

Customers are also asked to complete and return the acknowledgment form attached to the notice to Recall.39004@ge.com.

For questions or concerns about this recall, contact GE HealthCare Service at 1-800-437-1171 or a local service representative.

Health care professionals can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

*Correction, 8/3/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the reports received by the company.

GE HealthCare is recalling 7,559 TruSignal arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) sensors because of problems that may reduce defibrillation energy, expose patients to unintended voltage, or give inaccurate readings.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type. The company has not received any reports of patient injury or deaths as a result of these issues.*

The recall includes the TruSignal Adult Pediatric Sensor, TruSignal AllFit Sensor, TruSignal Sensitive Skin Sensor, TruSignal Wrap Sensor, TruSignal Ear Sensor, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor with GE Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, and TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Ohmeda Connector.

The sensors were distributed in the United States from Jan. 1, 2021, to March 4, 2023.

According to the recall notice, the malfunctioning sensors “may reduce the amount of energy sent to the heart during defibrillation without any notification to the care provider, which could prevent delivery of lifesaving therapy in a critical situation.

“This issue is most hazardous to hospitalized patients who may need defibrillation for cardiac arrest. Affected sensors may also unintentionally expose patients to electrical currents from other sources or may provide inaccurate measurements of SpO₂, which can impact treatment decisions,” the notice warns.

In an urgent device correction letter sent to health care professionals in May, GE HealthCare recommends that health care professionals do the following:

• Use an alternate method for SpO₂ monitoring, including TruSignal sensors not impacted or an alternate SpO₂ device.
• If alternate methods are not available, use affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors as long as they have not been saturated with fluids.
• If defibrillation is necessary when affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors are being used, remove the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor, defibrillate per hospital protocol, and reattach the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor after defibrillation is no longer needed.
• For Adult/Pediatric SpO₂ sensors, confirm that material does not cover the emitter or detector before using.
• Discard the sensor and use another sensor if any additional material is present.
• Make sure all potential users are made aware of this safety notification and the recommended actions, and retain this notice.

Customers are also asked to complete and return the acknowledgment form attached to the notice to Recall.39004@ge.com.

For questions or concerns about this recall, contact GE HealthCare Service at 1-800-437-1171 or a local service representative.

Health care professionals can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

*Correction, 8/3/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the reports received by the company.

On May 24, the news outlet ProPublica published a scathing investigation of Jeffery Dormu, DO, said to have performed hundreds of “medically unnecessary and invasive vascular procedures” in his Laurel, Md. office, putting patients’ limbs and lives at risk.

On July 15, The New York Times published a broader-based investigation of several vascular specialists said to have performed “risky” procedures on patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who subsequently had to have amputations, or died. The focus was mainly on Michigan-based interventional cardiologist Jihad Mustapha, MD.

This follows a 2019 analysis of Medicare claims data that identified outlier physicians with a high early intervention rate for patients newly diagnosed with claudication. According to the American Heart Association statistics, PAD affects approximately 8.5 million U.S. adults age 40 and older (some claim that’s an underestimate); most cases don’t require invasive treatment.

Are the ProPublica and Times stories emblematic of the field at large or a case of a few rogue doctors, and did changes in reimbursement and support from device manufacturers exacerbate the problem?

Responding to the Times’ revelations, Joseph L. Mills, MD, president of the Society for Vascular Surgery, wrote on the society’s website: “The overwhelming majority of vascular surgeons, and a vast majority of other specialists that receive some training and play a role in the care of vascular patients, including those trained in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology are providing high-quality, evidence-based care with safety and the best patient outcomes in mind.

“This is a complex issue that requires the examination not only of the events detailed in this story ... but of the underlying health care economic, legal and regulatory policies that created fertile soil for this behavior to germinate and take root.”
 

‘A few bad apples’

“I think it’s a case of a few bad apples,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “In general, I think physicians who take care of patients with vascular issues are trying to do the right thing. I think all of us who take care of patients with vascular disease see patients who are very, very complex, and there are going to be some procedures that have complications.

“Without knowing the clinical details, it’s hard to know whether the procedures described in the articles were overuse or unnecessary, or exactly what led to the amputations,” he said. “All we know is that these physicians are outliers in terms of the number of procedures they were billing for.

“But although correlation is not causation, it certainly is cause for concern because you would expect that the use of procedures for specific indications would fall within a certain range,” he added.
 

Lifestyle changes first

PAD is often asymptomatic or mild, making it difficult to diagnose. Revascularization procedures usually are reserved for the 5%-8% of patients at risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) or those in whom the cornerstones of PAD treatment – lifestyle changes and, if needed, medication – fail.

Revascularization options include balloon angioplasty or stent placement; atherectomy to remove plaques from the artery; or bypass surgery if a long portion of a leg artery is completely blocked. All carry a risk of long-term adverse outcomes, but the rates are highest for atherectomy.

Lifestyle changes include regular exercise, following a healthy diet, quitting smoking, and controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. When PAD continues or progresses despite these modifications, medications such as antiplatelet agents, antihypertensives, and/or lipid-lowering drugs may be prescribed.
 

‘Medically unnecessary’

According to the latest American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline on managing patients with lower-extremity PAD, patients should be selected for revascularization based on symptom severity.

Factors to consider include a significant disability as assessed by the patient, and adequacy of response to medical and structured exercise therapy.

There’s the rub regarding the clinicians investigated in the Times and ProPublica. Many patients, apparently, were not encouraged to make lifestyle changes, nor did they receive medication. Instead, they were advised from the get-go to undergo invasive procedures, and often multiple times. Underuse of prevention and lifestyle counseling n the management of PAD has long been a concern.

Furthermore, in at least some cases, patients without any symptoms were encouraged to be screened for blockages that were then treated invasively, according to the Times.

Dr. Dormu, as highlighted in ProPublica, positioned his practice as “life and limb saving.” Yet, in investigative findings that led to a suspension of Dr. Dormu’s license to practice medicine in Maryland, peer reviewers expressed concern regarding his repeated use of invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, exposing patients to “potential risks such as bleeding, infection, blood vessel injuries which could acutely or chronically worsen the patient’s circulation, and limb loss.”

The peer reviewers concurred that Dr. Dormu failed to use conservative management techniques to address the patients’ vascular complaints before resorting to invasive procedures.

Dr. Mustapha is described in the Times as a “high-volume” atherectomy provider. From 2017 to 2021, about half of Medicare’s atherectomy payments – $1.4 billion – went to 200 high-volume providers, with Dr. Mustapha near the top of the list.

Some of Dr. Mustapha’s patients underwent multiple procedures said to help prevent leg amputation, but their legs were amputated anyway, possibly because of the multiple atherectomies, according to the Times.

Judith Lin, MD, MBA, who treated some of Dr. Mustapha’s former patients, was among those who complained about his practice to Michigan’s licensing board. Some of the patients she treated needed amputations; others needed to have leftover wires extracted from their legs.

In 2020, the board investigated Dr. Lin’s complaint and referred it to Michigan’s attorney general, who brought a disciplinary action against Dr. Mustapha. An expert hired by the state to review eight patient cases concluded that Dr. Mustapha’s practice “was characterized by overtreatment and poor documentation.” In some cases, the expert wrote, “unnecessary procedures hastened amputations.”

The statement issued by Dr. Mills, the president of SVS, noted that the society’s practice guideline proposes a threshold of at least 2 years of likely durability for an intervention performed for claudication.

“The growing frequency of multiple, repeated procedures [is] emblematic of poor patient selection and inadequate durability of the chosen procedure, leading to a vicious cycle of repetitive interventions that is not only costly, but also dangerous,” he wrote.
 

Financial incentives to blame?

In 2008, Medicare created incentives for physicians to perform vascular procedures in offices rather than hospitals, in an effort to reduce medical costs, according to both investigative articles. But the effort backfired.

Before the changes, an office provider inserting a stent could make about $1,700 from Medicare; deploying a balloon could bring in roughly $3,800. By 2011, the payments rose to about $6,400 and $4,800, respectively.

Office-based atherectomies soared when, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing $13,500 per procedure, as opposed to roughly $11,450 in a hospital. Atherectomies increased by 60% from 2011 to 2014, and Medicare’s overall costs for peripheral vascular treatments climbed by nearly half a billion dollars.

“The government is really to blame for setting these tremendously high reimbursement values without looking into whether these procedures are helping people or are just worthless procedures or, in fact, are hurting people,” Dipankar Mukherjee, MD, a vascular surgeon and chief of vascular surgery at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital, said in ProPublica.

The result, noted Dr. Rao, is that “there can be perverse or nefarious incentives for doing these procedures. People are incentivized by reimbursement to do something that really falls in the area of clinical judgment and guidelines.”

Major incentives also come from device manufacturers, who often reward physicians who do the most vascular procedures with payments for consulting and other services, according to the Times. In addition, these companies lend money to help physicians or their clinics to finance the purchase of equipment used to perform the procedures.

“Vascular medicine now is the frontier of the Wild West,” Marty Makary, MD, MPH, a professor of surgery and health care quality researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told ProPublica. “People are flying blind walking into the clinics of these doctors with egregious practice patterns, and we know that their pattern is indefensible.”

Recognizing that the situation posed a threat to patients and also damaged the credibility of his specialty, Kim J. Hodgson, MD, a former SVS president, told attendees at the 2021 annual meeting of the SVS, “Somebody has to address what should never have been allowed to get to this level of threat to us and our patients in the first place. We can play whack-a-mole every time the bad actors surface until the cows come home, but that leaves a trail of harmed patients and wasted resources.”

Dr. Hodgson described atherectomy as “a procedure that many believe provides no demonstrable value whatsoever to the patient” and challenged those who disagree to prove it.
 

Multidisciplinary teams needed

Other experts believe there are times that revascularization procedures, including atherectomy, are appropriate. However, the majority of patients with PAD do not require a procedure, Soo Hyun (Esther) Kim, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Atrium Health Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. In fact, “many patients do not even know they have leg artery blockages.”

Invasive procedures may well be appropriate for patients with severe PAD, especially those with CLTI, and disparities may be keeping those who truly need such interventions – or for whom they may be at least considered – from accessing them. If PAD is not diagnosed and treated in a timely way, Dr. Kim said, those individuals “do indeed lose their limbs.”

Multidisciplinary teams can help, Dr. Kim said. “Specialists from multiple different training backgrounds [can] take good care of patients with PAD,” she said. This is important when access to a particular type of specialist is limited, and because patients with PAD often have complex medical problems that can benefit from a team approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement heart teams and complex coronary disease heart teams are two examples, Dr. Kim noted. “When a high-stakes procedure is being considered, the patient’s case is reviewed by multiple stakeholders to ensure appropriateness of the procedure and collaboratively evaluate risk.”

Dr. Rao also emphasized a team approach. “PAD does not belong to a single specialty,” he said. The revelations from the Times, ProPublica, and other sources “point to the fact that we all – cardiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists – should start thinking about how best to police ourselves and also account for the variation in clinical judgment.”

Use of a multidisciplinary team is a “guideline-recommended approach” for coronary artery revascularization, he said, “I think the same should apply for PAD.”

PAD is a sign of systemic atherosclerosis, Dr. Kim noted. “The treatment of PAD includes addressing leg pain and wounds with procedures, but the interventions that will keep people alive are the medications we use to prevent heart attack and stroke. Patients with PAD need to understand that treatment is much more than opening up a blockage in the leg.”

Dr. Rao and Dr. Kim disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

On May 24, the news outlet ProPublica published a scathing investigation of Jeffery Dormu, DO, said to have performed hundreds of “medically unnecessary and invasive vascular procedures” in his Laurel, Md. office, putting patients’ limbs and lives at risk.

On July 15, The New York Times published a broader-based investigation of several vascular specialists said to have performed “risky” procedures on patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who subsequently had to have amputations, or died. The focus was mainly on Michigan-based interventional cardiologist Jihad Mustapha, MD.

This follows a 2019 analysis of Medicare claims data that identified outlier physicians with a high early intervention rate for patients newly diagnosed with claudication. According to the American Heart Association statistics, PAD affects approximately 8.5 million U.S. adults age 40 and older (some claim that’s an underestimate); most cases don’t require invasive treatment.

Are the ProPublica and Times stories emblematic of the field at large or a case of a few rogue doctors, and did changes in reimbursement and support from device manufacturers exacerbate the problem?

Responding to the Times’ revelations, Joseph L. Mills, MD, president of the Society for Vascular Surgery, wrote on the society’s website: “The overwhelming majority of vascular surgeons, and a vast majority of other specialists that receive some training and play a role in the care of vascular patients, including those trained in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology are providing high-quality, evidence-based care with safety and the best patient outcomes in mind.

“This is a complex issue that requires the examination not only of the events detailed in this story ... but of the underlying health care economic, legal and regulatory policies that created fertile soil for this behavior to germinate and take root.”
 

‘A few bad apples’

“I think it’s a case of a few bad apples,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “In general, I think physicians who take care of patients with vascular issues are trying to do the right thing. I think all of us who take care of patients with vascular disease see patients who are very, very complex, and there are going to be some procedures that have complications.

“Without knowing the clinical details, it’s hard to know whether the procedures described in the articles were overuse or unnecessary, or exactly what led to the amputations,” he said. “All we know is that these physicians are outliers in terms of the number of procedures they were billing for.

“But although correlation is not causation, it certainly is cause for concern because you would expect that the use of procedures for specific indications would fall within a certain range,” he added.
 

Lifestyle changes first

PAD is often asymptomatic or mild, making it difficult to diagnose. Revascularization procedures usually are reserved for the 5%-8% of patients at risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) or those in whom the cornerstones of PAD treatment – lifestyle changes and, if needed, medication – fail.

Revascularization options include balloon angioplasty or stent placement; atherectomy to remove plaques from the artery; or bypass surgery if a long portion of a leg artery is completely blocked. All carry a risk of long-term adverse outcomes, but the rates are highest for atherectomy.

Lifestyle changes include regular exercise, following a healthy diet, quitting smoking, and controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. When PAD continues or progresses despite these modifications, medications such as antiplatelet agents, antihypertensives, and/or lipid-lowering drugs may be prescribed.
 

‘Medically unnecessary’

According to the latest American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline on managing patients with lower-extremity PAD, patients should be selected for revascularization based on symptom severity.

Factors to consider include a significant disability as assessed by the patient, and adequacy of response to medical and structured exercise therapy.

There’s the rub regarding the clinicians investigated in the Times and ProPublica. Many patients, apparently, were not encouraged to make lifestyle changes, nor did they receive medication. Instead, they were advised from the get-go to undergo invasive procedures, and often multiple times. Underuse of prevention and lifestyle counseling n the management of PAD has long been a concern.

Furthermore, in at least some cases, patients without any symptoms were encouraged to be screened for blockages that were then treated invasively, according to the Times.

Dr. Dormu, as highlighted in ProPublica, positioned his practice as “life and limb saving.” Yet, in investigative findings that led to a suspension of Dr. Dormu’s license to practice medicine in Maryland, peer reviewers expressed concern regarding his repeated use of invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, exposing patients to “potential risks such as bleeding, infection, blood vessel injuries which could acutely or chronically worsen the patient’s circulation, and limb loss.”

The peer reviewers concurred that Dr. Dormu failed to use conservative management techniques to address the patients’ vascular complaints before resorting to invasive procedures.

Dr. Mustapha is described in the Times as a “high-volume” atherectomy provider. From 2017 to 2021, about half of Medicare’s atherectomy payments – $1.4 billion – went to 200 high-volume providers, with Dr. Mustapha near the top of the list.

Some of Dr. Mustapha’s patients underwent multiple procedures said to help prevent leg amputation, but their legs were amputated anyway, possibly because of the multiple atherectomies, according to the Times.

Judith Lin, MD, MBA, who treated some of Dr. Mustapha’s former patients, was among those who complained about his practice to Michigan’s licensing board. Some of the patients she treated needed amputations; others needed to have leftover wires extracted from their legs.

In 2020, the board investigated Dr. Lin’s complaint and referred it to Michigan’s attorney general, who brought a disciplinary action against Dr. Mustapha. An expert hired by the state to review eight patient cases concluded that Dr. Mustapha’s practice “was characterized by overtreatment and poor documentation.” In some cases, the expert wrote, “unnecessary procedures hastened amputations.”

The statement issued by Dr. Mills, the president of SVS, noted that the society’s practice guideline proposes a threshold of at least 2 years of likely durability for an intervention performed for claudication.

“The growing frequency of multiple, repeated procedures [is] emblematic of poor patient selection and inadequate durability of the chosen procedure, leading to a vicious cycle of repetitive interventions that is not only costly, but also dangerous,” he wrote.
 

Financial incentives to blame?

In 2008, Medicare created incentives for physicians to perform vascular procedures in offices rather than hospitals, in an effort to reduce medical costs, according to both investigative articles. But the effort backfired.

Before the changes, an office provider inserting a stent could make about $1,700 from Medicare; deploying a balloon could bring in roughly $3,800. By 2011, the payments rose to about $6,400 and $4,800, respectively.

Office-based atherectomies soared when, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing $13,500 per procedure, as opposed to roughly $11,450 in a hospital. Atherectomies increased by 60% from 2011 to 2014, and Medicare’s overall costs for peripheral vascular treatments climbed by nearly half a billion dollars.

“The government is really to blame for setting these tremendously high reimbursement values without looking into whether these procedures are helping people or are just worthless procedures or, in fact, are hurting people,” Dipankar Mukherjee, MD, a vascular surgeon and chief of vascular surgery at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital, said in ProPublica.

The result, noted Dr. Rao, is that “there can be perverse or nefarious incentives for doing these procedures. People are incentivized by reimbursement to do something that really falls in the area of clinical judgment and guidelines.”

Major incentives also come from device manufacturers, who often reward physicians who do the most vascular procedures with payments for consulting and other services, according to the Times. In addition, these companies lend money to help physicians or their clinics to finance the purchase of equipment used to perform the procedures.

“Vascular medicine now is the frontier of the Wild West,” Marty Makary, MD, MPH, a professor of surgery and health care quality researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told ProPublica. “People are flying blind walking into the clinics of these doctors with egregious practice patterns, and we know that their pattern is indefensible.”

Recognizing that the situation posed a threat to patients and also damaged the credibility of his specialty, Kim J. Hodgson, MD, a former SVS president, told attendees at the 2021 annual meeting of the SVS, “Somebody has to address what should never have been allowed to get to this level of threat to us and our patients in the first place. We can play whack-a-mole every time the bad actors surface until the cows come home, but that leaves a trail of harmed patients and wasted resources.”

Dr. Hodgson described atherectomy as “a procedure that many believe provides no demonstrable value whatsoever to the patient” and challenged those who disagree to prove it.
 

Multidisciplinary teams needed

Other experts believe there are times that revascularization procedures, including atherectomy, are appropriate. However, the majority of patients with PAD do not require a procedure, Soo Hyun (Esther) Kim, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Atrium Health Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. In fact, “many patients do not even know they have leg artery blockages.”

Invasive procedures may well be appropriate for patients with severe PAD, especially those with CLTI, and disparities may be keeping those who truly need such interventions – or for whom they may be at least considered – from accessing them. If PAD is not diagnosed and treated in a timely way, Dr. Kim said, those individuals “do indeed lose their limbs.”

Multidisciplinary teams can help, Dr. Kim said. “Specialists from multiple different training backgrounds [can] take good care of patients with PAD,” she said. This is important when access to a particular type of specialist is limited, and because patients with PAD often have complex medical problems that can benefit from a team approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement heart teams and complex coronary disease heart teams are two examples, Dr. Kim noted. “When a high-stakes procedure is being considered, the patient’s case is reviewed by multiple stakeholders to ensure appropriateness of the procedure and collaboratively evaluate risk.”

Dr. Rao also emphasized a team approach. “PAD does not belong to a single specialty,” he said. The revelations from the Times, ProPublica, and other sources “point to the fact that we all – cardiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists – should start thinking about how best to police ourselves and also account for the variation in clinical judgment.”

Use of a multidisciplinary team is a “guideline-recommended approach” for coronary artery revascularization, he said, “I think the same should apply for PAD.”

PAD is a sign of systemic atherosclerosis, Dr. Kim noted. “The treatment of PAD includes addressing leg pain and wounds with procedures, but the interventions that will keep people alive are the medications we use to prevent heart attack and stroke. Patients with PAD need to understand that treatment is much more than opening up a blockage in the leg.”

Dr. Rao and Dr. Kim disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

On May 24, the news outlet ProPublica published a scathing investigation of Jeffery Dormu, DO, said to have performed hundreds of “medically unnecessary and invasive vascular procedures” in his Laurel, Md. office, putting patients’ limbs and lives at risk.

On July 15, The New York Times published a broader-based investigation of several vascular specialists said to have performed “risky” procedures on patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who subsequently had to have amputations, or died. The focus was mainly on Michigan-based interventional cardiologist Jihad Mustapha, MD.

This follows a 2019 analysis of Medicare claims data that identified outlier physicians with a high early intervention rate for patients newly diagnosed with claudication. According to the American Heart Association statistics, PAD affects approximately 8.5 million U.S. adults age 40 and older (some claim that’s an underestimate); most cases don’t require invasive treatment.

Are the ProPublica and Times stories emblematic of the field at large or a case of a few rogue doctors, and did changes in reimbursement and support from device manufacturers exacerbate the problem?

Responding to the Times’ revelations, Joseph L. Mills, MD, president of the Society for Vascular Surgery, wrote on the society’s website: “The overwhelming majority of vascular surgeons, and a vast majority of other specialists that receive some training and play a role in the care of vascular patients, including those trained in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology are providing high-quality, evidence-based care with safety and the best patient outcomes in mind.

“This is a complex issue that requires the examination not only of the events detailed in this story ... but of the underlying health care economic, legal and regulatory policies that created fertile soil for this behavior to germinate and take root.”
 

‘A few bad apples’

“I think it’s a case of a few bad apples,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “In general, I think physicians who take care of patients with vascular issues are trying to do the right thing. I think all of us who take care of patients with vascular disease see patients who are very, very complex, and there are going to be some procedures that have complications.

“Without knowing the clinical details, it’s hard to know whether the procedures described in the articles were overuse or unnecessary, or exactly what led to the amputations,” he said. “All we know is that these physicians are outliers in terms of the number of procedures they were billing for.

“But although correlation is not causation, it certainly is cause for concern because you would expect that the use of procedures for specific indications would fall within a certain range,” he added.
 

Lifestyle changes first

PAD is often asymptomatic or mild, making it difficult to diagnose. Revascularization procedures usually are reserved for the 5%-8% of patients at risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) or those in whom the cornerstones of PAD treatment – lifestyle changes and, if needed, medication – fail.

Revascularization options include balloon angioplasty or stent placement; atherectomy to remove plaques from the artery; or bypass surgery if a long portion of a leg artery is completely blocked. All carry a risk of long-term adverse outcomes, but the rates are highest for atherectomy.

Lifestyle changes include regular exercise, following a healthy diet, quitting smoking, and controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. When PAD continues or progresses despite these modifications, medications such as antiplatelet agents, antihypertensives, and/or lipid-lowering drugs may be prescribed.
 

‘Medically unnecessary’

According to the latest American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline on managing patients with lower-extremity PAD, patients should be selected for revascularization based on symptom severity.

Factors to consider include a significant disability as assessed by the patient, and adequacy of response to medical and structured exercise therapy.

There’s the rub regarding the clinicians investigated in the Times and ProPublica. Many patients, apparently, were not encouraged to make lifestyle changes, nor did they receive medication. Instead, they were advised from the get-go to undergo invasive procedures, and often multiple times. Underuse of prevention and lifestyle counseling n the management of PAD has long been a concern.

Furthermore, in at least some cases, patients without any symptoms were encouraged to be screened for blockages that were then treated invasively, according to the Times.

Dr. Dormu, as highlighted in ProPublica, positioned his practice as “life and limb saving.” Yet, in investigative findings that led to a suspension of Dr. Dormu’s license to practice medicine in Maryland, peer reviewers expressed concern regarding his repeated use of invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, exposing patients to “potential risks such as bleeding, infection, blood vessel injuries which could acutely or chronically worsen the patient’s circulation, and limb loss.”

The peer reviewers concurred that Dr. Dormu failed to use conservative management techniques to address the patients’ vascular complaints before resorting to invasive procedures.

Dr. Mustapha is described in the Times as a “high-volume” atherectomy provider. From 2017 to 2021, about half of Medicare’s atherectomy payments – $1.4 billion – went to 200 high-volume providers, with Dr. Mustapha near the top of the list.

Some of Dr. Mustapha’s patients underwent multiple procedures said to help prevent leg amputation, but their legs were amputated anyway, possibly because of the multiple atherectomies, according to the Times.

Judith Lin, MD, MBA, who treated some of Dr. Mustapha’s former patients, was among those who complained about his practice to Michigan’s licensing board. Some of the patients she treated needed amputations; others needed to have leftover wires extracted from their legs.

In 2020, the board investigated Dr. Lin’s complaint and referred it to Michigan’s attorney general, who brought a disciplinary action against Dr. Mustapha. An expert hired by the state to review eight patient cases concluded that Dr. Mustapha’s practice “was characterized by overtreatment and poor documentation.” In some cases, the expert wrote, “unnecessary procedures hastened amputations.”

The statement issued by Dr. Mills, the president of SVS, noted that the society’s practice guideline proposes a threshold of at least 2 years of likely durability for an intervention performed for claudication.

“The growing frequency of multiple, repeated procedures [is] emblematic of poor patient selection and inadequate durability of the chosen procedure, leading to a vicious cycle of repetitive interventions that is not only costly, but also dangerous,” he wrote.
 

Financial incentives to blame?

In 2008, Medicare created incentives for physicians to perform vascular procedures in offices rather than hospitals, in an effort to reduce medical costs, according to both investigative articles. But the effort backfired.

Before the changes, an office provider inserting a stent could make about $1,700 from Medicare; deploying a balloon could bring in roughly $3,800. By 2011, the payments rose to about $6,400 and $4,800, respectively.

Office-based atherectomies soared when, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing $13,500 per procedure, as opposed to roughly $11,450 in a hospital. Atherectomies increased by 60% from 2011 to 2014, and Medicare’s overall costs for peripheral vascular treatments climbed by nearly half a billion dollars.

“The government is really to blame for setting these tremendously high reimbursement values without looking into whether these procedures are helping people or are just worthless procedures or, in fact, are hurting people,” Dipankar Mukherjee, MD, a vascular surgeon and chief of vascular surgery at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital, said in ProPublica.

The result, noted Dr. Rao, is that “there can be perverse or nefarious incentives for doing these procedures. People are incentivized by reimbursement to do something that really falls in the area of clinical judgment and guidelines.”

Major incentives also come from device manufacturers, who often reward physicians who do the most vascular procedures with payments for consulting and other services, according to the Times. In addition, these companies lend money to help physicians or their clinics to finance the purchase of equipment used to perform the procedures.

“Vascular medicine now is the frontier of the Wild West,” Marty Makary, MD, MPH, a professor of surgery and health care quality researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told ProPublica. “People are flying blind walking into the clinics of these doctors with egregious practice patterns, and we know that their pattern is indefensible.”

Recognizing that the situation posed a threat to patients and also damaged the credibility of his specialty, Kim J. Hodgson, MD, a former SVS president, told attendees at the 2021 annual meeting of the SVS, “Somebody has to address what should never have been allowed to get to this level of threat to us and our patients in the first place. We can play whack-a-mole every time the bad actors surface until the cows come home, but that leaves a trail of harmed patients and wasted resources.”

Dr. Hodgson described atherectomy as “a procedure that many believe provides no demonstrable value whatsoever to the patient” and challenged those who disagree to prove it.
 

Multidisciplinary teams needed

Other experts believe there are times that revascularization procedures, including atherectomy, are appropriate. However, the majority of patients with PAD do not require a procedure, Soo Hyun (Esther) Kim, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Atrium Health Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. In fact, “many patients do not even know they have leg artery blockages.”

Invasive procedures may well be appropriate for patients with severe PAD, especially those with CLTI, and disparities may be keeping those who truly need such interventions – or for whom they may be at least considered – from accessing them. If PAD is not diagnosed and treated in a timely way, Dr. Kim said, those individuals “do indeed lose their limbs.”

Multidisciplinary teams can help, Dr. Kim said. “Specialists from multiple different training backgrounds [can] take good care of patients with PAD,” she said. This is important when access to a particular type of specialist is limited, and because patients with PAD often have complex medical problems that can benefit from a team approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement heart teams and complex coronary disease heart teams are two examples, Dr. Kim noted. “When a high-stakes procedure is being considered, the patient’s case is reviewed by multiple stakeholders to ensure appropriateness of the procedure and collaboratively evaluate risk.”

Dr. Rao also emphasized a team approach. “PAD does not belong to a single specialty,” he said. The revelations from the Times, ProPublica, and other sources “point to the fact that we all – cardiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists – should start thinking about how best to police ourselves and also account for the variation in clinical judgment.”

Use of a multidisciplinary team is a “guideline-recommended approach” for coronary artery revascularization, he said, “I think the same should apply for PAD.”

PAD is a sign of systemic atherosclerosis, Dr. Kim noted. “The treatment of PAD includes addressing leg pain and wounds with procedures, but the interventions that will keep people alive are the medications we use to prevent heart attack and stroke. Patients with PAD need to understand that treatment is much more than opening up a blockage in the leg.”

Dr. Rao and Dr. Kim disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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