MDedge Surgery

One of the unexpected consequences of the pandemic is that many people are rethinking their priorities and lifestyles, and physicians are no exception.

This year’s Medscape Physician Lifestyle and Happiness Report surveyed more than 10,000 physicians in 29 specialties about how they are prioritizing wellness, work-life balance, and their family lives during this challenging time.

Pets, prayer, and partners

The pandemic has taken a toll on physicians outside of work as well as on the job. Eight in 10 physicians (82% of men and 80% of women) said they were “somewhat” or “very” happy outside of work before the pandemic. This is almost exactly the same result as in last year’s survey.

However, when asked how happy they are outside of work currently, only 6 in 10 (59%) reported being “somewhat” or “very” happy. While the pandemic has made life difficult for everyone, health care professionals face particular stresses even outside of work. Wayne M. Sotile, PhD, founder of the Center for Physician Resilience, says he has counseled doctors who witnessed COVID-related suffering and death at work, then came home to a partner who didn’t believe that the pandemic was real.

Still, physicians reported that spending time with people they love and engaging in favorite activities helps them stay happy. “Spending time with pets” and “religious practice/prayer” were frequent “other” responses to the question, “What do you do to maintain happiness and mental health?” Seven in 10 physicians reported having some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.

The majority of physicians (83%) are either married or living with a partner, with male physicians edging out their female peers (89% vs. 75%). Among married physicians, 8 in 10 physicians reported that their union is “good” or “very good.” The pandemic may have helped in this respect. Dr. Sotile says he’s heard physicians say that they’ve connected more with their families in the past 18 months. Specialists with the highest rates of happy marriages were otolaryngologists and immunologists (both 91%), followed closely by dermatologists, rheumatologists, and nephrologists (all 90%).

Among physicians balancing a medical career and parenthood, female physicians reported feeling conflicted more often than males (48% vs. 29%). Nicole A. Sparks, MD, an ob.gyn. and a health and lifestyle blogger, cites not being there for her kids as a source of stress. She notes that her two young children notice when she’s not there to help with homework, read bedtime stories, or make their dinner. “Mom guilt can definitely set in if I have to miss important events,” she says.

Work-life balance is an important, if elusive, goal for physicians, and not just females. Sixty percent of female doctors and 53% of male doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if it meant more free time and a better work-life balance. Many doctors do manage to get away from work occasionally, with one-fifth of all physicians taking 5 or more weeks of vacation each year.

Seeking a ‘balanced life’

Alexis Polles, MD, medical director for the Professionals Resource Network, points out the importance of taking time for personal health and wellness. “When we work with professionals who have problems with mental health or substance abuse, they often don’t have a balanced life,” she says. “They are usually in a workaholic mindset and disregard their own needs.”

Few physicians seem to prioritize self-care, with a third indicating they “always” or “most of the time” spend enough time on their own health and wellness. But of those who do, males (38%) are more likely than females (27%) to spend enough time on their own health and wellness. Dr. Polles adds that exercising after a shift can help physicians better make the transition from professional to personal life. Though they did not report when they exercised, about a third of physicians reported doing so four or more times per week. Controlling weight is an issue as well, with 49% of male and 55% of female physicians saying they are currently trying to lose weight.

Of physicians who drink alcohol, about a third have three or more drinks per week. (The CDC defines “heavy drinking” as consuming 15 drinks or more per week for men and eight drinks or more per week for women.)

Of those surveyed, 92% say they do not regularly use cannabidiol or cannabis, and a mere 4% of respondents said they would use at least one of these substances if they were to become legal in their state.

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

One of the unexpected consequences of the pandemic is that many people are rethinking their priorities and lifestyles, and physicians are no exception.

This year’s Medscape Physician Lifestyle and Happiness Report surveyed more than 10,000 physicians in 29 specialties about how they are prioritizing wellness, work-life balance, and their family lives during this challenging time.

Pets, prayer, and partners

The pandemic has taken a toll on physicians outside of work as well as on the job. Eight in 10 physicians (82% of men and 80% of women) said they were “somewhat” or “very” happy outside of work before the pandemic. This is almost exactly the same result as in last year’s survey.

However, when asked how happy they are outside of work currently, only 6 in 10 (59%) reported being “somewhat” or “very” happy. While the pandemic has made life difficult for everyone, health care professionals face particular stresses even outside of work. Wayne M. Sotile, PhD, founder of the Center for Physician Resilience, says he has counseled doctors who witnessed COVID-related suffering and death at work, then came home to a partner who didn’t believe that the pandemic was real.

Still, physicians reported that spending time with people they love and engaging in favorite activities helps them stay happy. “Spending time with pets” and “religious practice/prayer” were frequent “other” responses to the question, “What do you do to maintain happiness and mental health?” Seven in 10 physicians reported having some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.

The majority of physicians (83%) are either married or living with a partner, with male physicians edging out their female peers (89% vs. 75%). Among married physicians, 8 in 10 physicians reported that their union is “good” or “very good.” The pandemic may have helped in this respect. Dr. Sotile says he’s heard physicians say that they’ve connected more with their families in the past 18 months. Specialists with the highest rates of happy marriages were otolaryngologists and immunologists (both 91%), followed closely by dermatologists, rheumatologists, and nephrologists (all 90%).

Among physicians balancing a medical career and parenthood, female physicians reported feeling conflicted more often than males (48% vs. 29%). Nicole A. Sparks, MD, an ob.gyn. and a health and lifestyle blogger, cites not being there for her kids as a source of stress. She notes that her two young children notice when she’s not there to help with homework, read bedtime stories, or make their dinner. “Mom guilt can definitely set in if I have to miss important events,” she says.

Work-life balance is an important, if elusive, goal for physicians, and not just females. Sixty percent of female doctors and 53% of male doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if it meant more free time and a better work-life balance. Many doctors do manage to get away from work occasionally, with one-fifth of all physicians taking 5 or more weeks of vacation each year.

Seeking a ‘balanced life’

Alexis Polles, MD, medical director for the Professionals Resource Network, points out the importance of taking time for personal health and wellness. “When we work with professionals who have problems with mental health or substance abuse, they often don’t have a balanced life,” she says. “They are usually in a workaholic mindset and disregard their own needs.”

Few physicians seem to prioritize self-care, with a third indicating they “always” or “most of the time” spend enough time on their own health and wellness. But of those who do, males (38%) are more likely than females (27%) to spend enough time on their own health and wellness. Dr. Polles adds that exercising after a shift can help physicians better make the transition from professional to personal life. Though they did not report when they exercised, about a third of physicians reported doing so four or more times per week. Controlling weight is an issue as well, with 49% of male and 55% of female physicians saying they are currently trying to lose weight.

Of physicians who drink alcohol, about a third have three or more drinks per week. (The CDC defines “heavy drinking” as consuming 15 drinks or more per week for men and eight drinks or more per week for women.)

Of those surveyed, 92% say they do not regularly use cannabidiol or cannabis, and a mere 4% of respondents said they would use at least one of these substances if they were to become legal in their state.

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

One of the unexpected consequences of the pandemic is that many people are rethinking their priorities and lifestyles, and physicians are no exception.

This year’s Medscape Physician Lifestyle and Happiness Report surveyed more than 10,000 physicians in 29 specialties about how they are prioritizing wellness, work-life balance, and their family lives during this challenging time.

Pets, prayer, and partners

The pandemic has taken a toll on physicians outside of work as well as on the job. Eight in 10 physicians (82% of men and 80% of women) said they were “somewhat” or “very” happy outside of work before the pandemic. This is almost exactly the same result as in last year’s survey.

However, when asked how happy they are outside of work currently, only 6 in 10 (59%) reported being “somewhat” or “very” happy. While the pandemic has made life difficult for everyone, health care professionals face particular stresses even outside of work. Wayne M. Sotile, PhD, founder of the Center for Physician Resilience, says he has counseled doctors who witnessed COVID-related suffering and death at work, then came home to a partner who didn’t believe that the pandemic was real.

Still, physicians reported that spending time with people they love and engaging in favorite activities helps them stay happy. “Spending time with pets” and “religious practice/prayer” were frequent “other” responses to the question, “What do you do to maintain happiness and mental health?” Seven in 10 physicians reported having some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.

The majority of physicians (83%) are either married or living with a partner, with male physicians edging out their female peers (89% vs. 75%). Among married physicians, 8 in 10 physicians reported that their union is “good” or “very good.” The pandemic may have helped in this respect. Dr. Sotile says he’s heard physicians say that they’ve connected more with their families in the past 18 months. Specialists with the highest rates of happy marriages were otolaryngologists and immunologists (both 91%), followed closely by dermatologists, rheumatologists, and nephrologists (all 90%).

Among physicians balancing a medical career and parenthood, female physicians reported feeling conflicted more often than males (48% vs. 29%). Nicole A. Sparks, MD, an ob.gyn. and a health and lifestyle blogger, cites not being there for her kids as a source of stress. She notes that her two young children notice when she’s not there to help with homework, read bedtime stories, or make their dinner. “Mom guilt can definitely set in if I have to miss important events,” she says.

Work-life balance is an important, if elusive, goal for physicians, and not just females. Sixty percent of female doctors and 53% of male doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if it meant more free time and a better work-life balance. Many doctors do manage to get away from work occasionally, with one-fifth of all physicians taking 5 or more weeks of vacation each year.

Seeking a ‘balanced life’

Alexis Polles, MD, medical director for the Professionals Resource Network, points out the importance of taking time for personal health and wellness. “When we work with professionals who have problems with mental health or substance abuse, they often don’t have a balanced life,” she says. “They are usually in a workaholic mindset and disregard their own needs.”

Few physicians seem to prioritize self-care, with a third indicating they “always” or “most of the time” spend enough time on their own health and wellness. But of those who do, males (38%) are more likely than females (27%) to spend enough time on their own health and wellness. Dr. Polles adds that exercising after a shift can help physicians better make the transition from professional to personal life. Though they did not report when they exercised, about a third of physicians reported doing so four or more times per week. Controlling weight is an issue as well, with 49% of male and 55% of female physicians saying they are currently trying to lose weight.

Of physicians who drink alcohol, about a third have three or more drinks per week. (The CDC defines “heavy drinking” as consuming 15 drinks or more per week for men and eight drinks or more per week for women.)

Of those surveyed, 92% say they do not regularly use cannabidiol or cannabis, and a mere 4% of respondents said they would use at least one of these substances if they were to become legal in their state.

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

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

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

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

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

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

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

A new analysis of data from a major U.S. trial comparing antibiotics with surgery for appendicitis yielded more information that can help patients weigh options for treatment.

The presence of mineralized stool, known as appendicolith, was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics, write David Flum, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors in a paper published in JAMA Surgery on Jan. 12, 2021.

But the surprise was the lack of an association between appendectomy and factors often presumed to be consistent with more severe appendicitis.

Physicians have had their own ideas about what factors make a patient more likely to need an appendectomy after an initial round of treatment with antibiotics, such as a high white blood cell count or a perforation seen on CT scan, Dr. Flum said in an interview. But the research didn’t support some of these theories.

“This is why we do the studies,” Dr. Flum said. “Sometimes we find out that our hunches were wrong.”

Dr. Flum and coauthors measured the association between different patient factors and disease severity and the need for appendectomy following a course of antibiotics. They used adjusted odds ratios to describe these relationships while accounting for other differences.

An OR of 1.0 – or when the confidence interval around an OR crosses 1 – signals that there is no association between that factor and appendectomy. Positive ORs with confidence intervals that exclude 1.0 suggest the factor was associated with appendectomy.

The OR was 1.99 for the presence of appendicolith, a finding with a 95% confidence interval of 1.28-3.10. The OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01-2.31) for female sex.

But the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.66-1.98) for perforation, abscess, or fat stranding.

The OR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.18) for radiographic finding of a larger appendix, as measured by diameter.

And the OR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) for having a higher white blood cell count, as measured by a 1,000-cells/mcL increase.
 

Appy or not?

This paper draws from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial (NCT02800785), for which top-line results were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Dr. Flum and colleagues reported on results for 1,552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) who were evenly randomized to either antibiotics treatment or appendectomy. After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, as reported by this news organization.

The federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the CODA research. Dr. Flum said the National Institutes of Health had not appeared interested in funding a look at the different options available to patients experiencing appendicitis. Congress created PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, seeking to encourage researchers to study which treatments best serve patients through direct comparisons. Its support was critical for Dr. Flum and colleagues in seeking to help people weigh their options for treating appendicitis.

The CODA study “models what the patient’s experience is like, and this has not been the focus of NIH as much,” Dr. Flum said.

The CODA team has sought to make it easy for patients to consider what its findings and other research on appendicitis mean for them. They created an online decision-making tool, available at the aptly named http://www.appyornot.org/ website, which has videos in English and Spanish explaining patients’ options in simple terms. The website also asks questions about personal preferences, priorities, and resources to help them choose a treatment based on their individual situation.
 

Shift away from ‘paternalistic framing’

In the past, surgeons focused on the risk for patients from procedures, making the decisions for them about whether or not to proceed. There’s now a drive to shift away from this “paternalistic framing” toward shared decision-making, Dr. Flum said.

Surgeons need to have conversations with their patients about what’s happening in their lives as well as to assess their fears and concerns about treatment options, he said. These are aspects of patient care that were not covered in medical school or surgical training, but they lead to “less paternalistic” treatment. A patient’s decision about whether to choose surgery or antibiotics for appendicitis may hinge on factors such as insurance coverage, access to childcare, and the ability to miss days of work.

Dr. Flum said his fellow surgeons by and large have reacted well to the CODA team’s work.

“To their credit, the surgical community has embraced a healthy skepticism about the role of surgery,” Dr. Flum said.

The guidelines of the American College of Surgeons state that there is “high-quality evidence” that most patients with appendicitis can be managed with antibiotics instead of appendectomy (69% overall avoid appendectomy by 90 days, 75% of those without appendicolith, and 59% of those with appendicolith).

“Based on the surgeon’s judgment, patient preferences, and local resources (e.g., hospital staff, bed, and PPE supply availability) antibiotics are an acceptable first-line treatment, with appendectomy offered for those with worsening or recurrent symptoms,” the ACS guidelines say.

In an interview, Samir M. Fakhry, MD, vice president of HCA Center for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Research in Nashville, Tenn., agreed with Dr. Flum about the shift taking place in medicine.

The CODA research, including the new paper in JAMA Surgery, makes it easier for physicians to work with patients and their families to reach decisions about how to treat appendicitis, Dr. Fakhry said.

These important discussions take time, he said, and patients must be allowed that time. Patients might feel misled, for example, if a surgeon pressed for appendectomy without explaining that a course of antibiotics may have served them well. Other patients may opt for surgery right away, especially in cases with appendicoliths, to avoid the potential for repeat episodes of medical care.

“You’ve got people who just want to get it done and over with. You’ve got people who want to avoid surgery no matter what,” Dr. Fakhry said. “It’s not just about the science and the data.”

This study was supported by a grant from PCORI. The authors reported having served as consultants or reviewers or have received fees for work outside of this paper from Stryker, Kerecis, Acera, Medline, Shriner’s Research Fund, UpToDate, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Stryker.

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

A new analysis of data from a major U.S. trial comparing antibiotics with surgery for appendicitis yielded more information that can help patients weigh options for treatment.

The presence of mineralized stool, known as appendicolith, was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics, write David Flum, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors in a paper published in JAMA Surgery on Jan. 12, 2021.

But the surprise was the lack of an association between appendectomy and factors often presumed to be consistent with more severe appendicitis.

Physicians have had their own ideas about what factors make a patient more likely to need an appendectomy after an initial round of treatment with antibiotics, such as a high white blood cell count or a perforation seen on CT scan, Dr. Flum said in an interview. But the research didn’t support some of these theories.

“This is why we do the studies,” Dr. Flum said. “Sometimes we find out that our hunches were wrong.”

Dr. Flum and coauthors measured the association between different patient factors and disease severity and the need for appendectomy following a course of antibiotics. They used adjusted odds ratios to describe these relationships while accounting for other differences.

An OR of 1.0 – or when the confidence interval around an OR crosses 1 – signals that there is no association between that factor and appendectomy. Positive ORs with confidence intervals that exclude 1.0 suggest the factor was associated with appendectomy.

The OR was 1.99 for the presence of appendicolith, a finding with a 95% confidence interval of 1.28-3.10. The OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01-2.31) for female sex.

But the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.66-1.98) for perforation, abscess, or fat stranding.

The OR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.18) for radiographic finding of a larger appendix, as measured by diameter.

And the OR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) for having a higher white blood cell count, as measured by a 1,000-cells/mcL increase.
 

Appy or not?

This paper draws from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial (NCT02800785), for which top-line results were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Dr. Flum and colleagues reported on results for 1,552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) who were evenly randomized to either antibiotics treatment or appendectomy. After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, as reported by this news organization.

The federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the CODA research. Dr. Flum said the National Institutes of Health had not appeared interested in funding a look at the different options available to patients experiencing appendicitis. Congress created PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, seeking to encourage researchers to study which treatments best serve patients through direct comparisons. Its support was critical for Dr. Flum and colleagues in seeking to help people weigh their options for treating appendicitis.

The CODA study “models what the patient’s experience is like, and this has not been the focus of NIH as much,” Dr. Flum said.

The CODA team has sought to make it easy for patients to consider what its findings and other research on appendicitis mean for them. They created an online decision-making tool, available at the aptly named http://www.appyornot.org/ website, which has videos in English and Spanish explaining patients’ options in simple terms. The website also asks questions about personal preferences, priorities, and resources to help them choose a treatment based on their individual situation.
 

Shift away from ‘paternalistic framing’

In the past, surgeons focused on the risk for patients from procedures, making the decisions for them about whether or not to proceed. There’s now a drive to shift away from this “paternalistic framing” toward shared decision-making, Dr. Flum said.

Surgeons need to have conversations with their patients about what’s happening in their lives as well as to assess their fears and concerns about treatment options, he said. These are aspects of patient care that were not covered in medical school or surgical training, but they lead to “less paternalistic” treatment. A patient’s decision about whether to choose surgery or antibiotics for appendicitis may hinge on factors such as insurance coverage, access to childcare, and the ability to miss days of work.

Dr. Flum said his fellow surgeons by and large have reacted well to the CODA team’s work.

“To their credit, the surgical community has embraced a healthy skepticism about the role of surgery,” Dr. Flum said.

The guidelines of the American College of Surgeons state that there is “high-quality evidence” that most patients with appendicitis can be managed with antibiotics instead of appendectomy (69% overall avoid appendectomy by 90 days, 75% of those without appendicolith, and 59% of those with appendicolith).

“Based on the surgeon’s judgment, patient preferences, and local resources (e.g., hospital staff, bed, and PPE supply availability) antibiotics are an acceptable first-line treatment, with appendectomy offered for those with worsening or recurrent symptoms,” the ACS guidelines say.

In an interview, Samir M. Fakhry, MD, vice president of HCA Center for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Research in Nashville, Tenn., agreed with Dr. Flum about the shift taking place in medicine.

The CODA research, including the new paper in JAMA Surgery, makes it easier for physicians to work with patients and their families to reach decisions about how to treat appendicitis, Dr. Fakhry said.

These important discussions take time, he said, and patients must be allowed that time. Patients might feel misled, for example, if a surgeon pressed for appendectomy without explaining that a course of antibiotics may have served them well. Other patients may opt for surgery right away, especially in cases with appendicoliths, to avoid the potential for repeat episodes of medical care.

“You’ve got people who just want to get it done and over with. You’ve got people who want to avoid surgery no matter what,” Dr. Fakhry said. “It’s not just about the science and the data.”

This study was supported by a grant from PCORI. The authors reported having served as consultants or reviewers or have received fees for work outside of this paper from Stryker, Kerecis, Acera, Medline, Shriner’s Research Fund, UpToDate, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Stryker.

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

A new analysis of data from a major U.S. trial comparing antibiotics with surgery for appendicitis yielded more information that can help patients weigh options for treatment.

The presence of mineralized stool, known as appendicolith, was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics, write David Flum, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors in a paper published in JAMA Surgery on Jan. 12, 2021.

But the surprise was the lack of an association between appendectomy and factors often presumed to be consistent with more severe appendicitis.

Physicians have had their own ideas about what factors make a patient more likely to need an appendectomy after an initial round of treatment with antibiotics, such as a high white blood cell count or a perforation seen on CT scan, Dr. Flum said in an interview. But the research didn’t support some of these theories.

“This is why we do the studies,” Dr. Flum said. “Sometimes we find out that our hunches were wrong.”

Dr. Flum and coauthors measured the association between different patient factors and disease severity and the need for appendectomy following a course of antibiotics. They used adjusted odds ratios to describe these relationships while accounting for other differences.

An OR of 1.0 – or when the confidence interval around an OR crosses 1 – signals that there is no association between that factor and appendectomy. Positive ORs with confidence intervals that exclude 1.0 suggest the factor was associated with appendectomy.

The OR was 1.99 for the presence of appendicolith, a finding with a 95% confidence interval of 1.28-3.10. The OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01-2.31) for female sex.

But the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.66-1.98) for perforation, abscess, or fat stranding.

The OR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.18) for radiographic finding of a larger appendix, as measured by diameter.

And the OR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) for having a higher white blood cell count, as measured by a 1,000-cells/mcL increase.
 

Appy or not?

This paper draws from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial (NCT02800785), for which top-line results were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Dr. Flum and colleagues reported on results for 1,552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) who were evenly randomized to either antibiotics treatment or appendectomy. After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, as reported by this news organization.

The federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the CODA research. Dr. Flum said the National Institutes of Health had not appeared interested in funding a look at the different options available to patients experiencing appendicitis. Congress created PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, seeking to encourage researchers to study which treatments best serve patients through direct comparisons. Its support was critical for Dr. Flum and colleagues in seeking to help people weigh their options for treating appendicitis.

The CODA study “models what the patient’s experience is like, and this has not been the focus of NIH as much,” Dr. Flum said.

The CODA team has sought to make it easy for patients to consider what its findings and other research on appendicitis mean for them. They created an online decision-making tool, available at the aptly named http://www.appyornot.org/ website, which has videos in English and Spanish explaining patients’ options in simple terms. The website also asks questions about personal preferences, priorities, and resources to help them choose a treatment based on their individual situation.
 

Shift away from ‘paternalistic framing’

In the past, surgeons focused on the risk for patients from procedures, making the decisions for them about whether or not to proceed. There’s now a drive to shift away from this “paternalistic framing” toward shared decision-making, Dr. Flum said.

Surgeons need to have conversations with their patients about what’s happening in their lives as well as to assess their fears and concerns about treatment options, he said. These are aspects of patient care that were not covered in medical school or surgical training, but they lead to “less paternalistic” treatment. A patient’s decision about whether to choose surgery or antibiotics for appendicitis may hinge on factors such as insurance coverage, access to childcare, and the ability to miss days of work.

Dr. Flum said his fellow surgeons by and large have reacted well to the CODA team’s work.

“To their credit, the surgical community has embraced a healthy skepticism about the role of surgery,” Dr. Flum said.

The guidelines of the American College of Surgeons state that there is “high-quality evidence” that most patients with appendicitis can be managed with antibiotics instead of appendectomy (69% overall avoid appendectomy by 90 days, 75% of those without appendicolith, and 59% of those with appendicolith).

“Based on the surgeon’s judgment, patient preferences, and local resources (e.g., hospital staff, bed, and PPE supply availability) antibiotics are an acceptable first-line treatment, with appendectomy offered for those with worsening or recurrent symptoms,” the ACS guidelines say.

In an interview, Samir M. Fakhry, MD, vice president of HCA Center for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Research in Nashville, Tenn., agreed with Dr. Flum about the shift taking place in medicine.

The CODA research, including the new paper in JAMA Surgery, makes it easier for physicians to work with patients and their families to reach decisions about how to treat appendicitis, Dr. Fakhry said.

These important discussions take time, he said, and patients must be allowed that time. Patients might feel misled, for example, if a surgeon pressed for appendectomy without explaining that a course of antibiotics may have served them well. Other patients may opt for surgery right away, especially in cases with appendicoliths, to avoid the potential for repeat episodes of medical care.

“You’ve got people who just want to get it done and over with. You’ve got people who want to avoid surgery no matter what,” Dr. Fakhry said. “It’s not just about the science and the data.”

This study was supported by a grant from PCORI. The authors reported having served as consultants or reviewers or have received fees for work outside of this paper from Stryker, Kerecis, Acera, Medline, Shriner’s Research Fund, UpToDate, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Stryker.

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

A genetic risk factor could explain why some people lose their senses of smell and taste when they get infected with COVID-19, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics

The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.

“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.

“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”

Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.

The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.

The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.

The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.

The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.

“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”

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

A genetic risk factor could explain why some people lose their senses of smell and taste when they get infected with COVID-19, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics

The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.

“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.

“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”

Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.

The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.

The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.

The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.

The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.

“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”

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

A genetic risk factor could explain why some people lose their senses of smell and taste when they get infected with COVID-19, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics

The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.

“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.

“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”

Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.

The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.

The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.

The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.

The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.

“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”

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

A fourth shot of the COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies but doesn’t provide enough protection to prevent infections from the Omicron variant, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.

The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.

“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.

“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.

In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.

Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.

“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”

Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.

Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.

The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.

“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.

As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.

“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

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

A fourth shot of the COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies but doesn’t provide enough protection to prevent infections from the Omicron variant, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.

The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.

“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.

“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.

In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.

Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.

“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”

Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.

Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.

The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.

“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.

As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.

“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

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

A fourth shot of the COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies but doesn’t provide enough protection to prevent infections from the Omicron variant, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.

The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.

“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.

“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.

In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.

Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.

“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”

Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.

Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.

The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.

“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.

As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.

“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Routine checks of vital signs during the night often prevent hospitalized patients from getting sufficient recuperative sleep. But patients who are judged to be clinically stable by an algorithm that uses real-time data can be safely spared these checks, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In their study, Nader Najafi, MD, MAS, from the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues were able to significantly reduce the number of checks at night without increasing transfers to the intensive care ward or heart-alarm triggers.

“Sleep is crucial to health,” writes Hyung J. Cho, MD, from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, in an accompanying editorial. “Ironically, hospitals, where people go to recover from illness, are among the most difficult places to sleep.”

Number of night-time checks successfully reduced

The mean number of night-time checks was significantly lower in the algorithm group than in the standard-care group (0.97 vs. 1.41; P < .001).

The reduction in night-time checks had no effect on patient safety. There was no increase in transfers to the intensive care unit in the algorithm or standard-care groups (5% vs 5%; P = .92), and no difference between the number of heart alarms (0.2% vs. 0.9%; P = .07).

However, the reduction also had no effect on the incidence of episodes of delirium in the algorithm or standard-care groups (11% vs. 13%; P = .32).

“The reduction in vital signs checking, although statistically significant, was relatively small,” Dr. Cho explains. But the primary endpoint might have been different had the adherence to intervention been better, he notes.

In fact, the analysis confirmed that changes to routine daily practice in a hospital are not always easy to implement. In 35% of cases, the patients’ vital signs were checked at night, despite the physician’s order to the contrary.

“Busy patient-care assistants and nurses may check vital signs out of habit without noticing that the order has changed for some of the patients,” Dr. Najafi and his coauthors write. Many hospitals are used to thinking that regular measurements of the vital signs are part of good practice.
 

Include nursing staff

Future projects should use an interdisciplinary approach that includes nursing staff, Dr. Cho recommends. More user-friendly displays and optimized alerts in the electronic patient records could also encourage better implementation of the orders.

Less frequent checks of the vital signs would be welcomed by frontline staff because it would lighten their already heavy workload, he adds.

Although the study didn’t meet its primary endpoint, patients subjected to fewer night-time checks because of the algorithm were able to get a good night’s sleep. Other aspects of hospital care that are based on the patient’s stability, such as cardiac monitoring, could also potentially benefit from this type of intervention, Dr. Najafi and his colleagues suggest.

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

Routine checks of vital signs during the night often prevent hospitalized patients from getting sufficient recuperative sleep. But patients who are judged to be clinically stable by an algorithm that uses real-time data can be safely spared these checks, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In their study, Nader Najafi, MD, MAS, from the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues were able to significantly reduce the number of checks at night without increasing transfers to the intensive care ward or heart-alarm triggers.

“Sleep is crucial to health,” writes Hyung J. Cho, MD, from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, in an accompanying editorial. “Ironically, hospitals, where people go to recover from illness, are among the most difficult places to sleep.”

Number of night-time checks successfully reduced

The mean number of night-time checks was significantly lower in the algorithm group than in the standard-care group (0.97 vs. 1.41; P < .001).

The reduction in night-time checks had no effect on patient safety. There was no increase in transfers to the intensive care unit in the algorithm or standard-care groups (5% vs 5%; P = .92), and no difference between the number of heart alarms (0.2% vs. 0.9%; P = .07).

However, the reduction also had no effect on the incidence of episodes of delirium in the algorithm or standard-care groups (11% vs. 13%; P = .32).

“The reduction in vital signs checking, although statistically significant, was relatively small,” Dr. Cho explains. But the primary endpoint might have been different had the adherence to intervention been better, he notes.

In fact, the analysis confirmed that changes to routine daily practice in a hospital are not always easy to implement. In 35% of cases, the patients’ vital signs were checked at night, despite the physician’s order to the contrary.

“Busy patient-care assistants and nurses may check vital signs out of habit without noticing that the order has changed for some of the patients,” Dr. Najafi and his coauthors write. Many hospitals are used to thinking that regular measurements of the vital signs are part of good practice.
 

Include nursing staff

Future projects should use an interdisciplinary approach that includes nursing staff, Dr. Cho recommends. More user-friendly displays and optimized alerts in the electronic patient records could also encourage better implementation of the orders.

Less frequent checks of the vital signs would be welcomed by frontline staff because it would lighten their already heavy workload, he adds.

Although the study didn’t meet its primary endpoint, patients subjected to fewer night-time checks because of the algorithm were able to get a good night’s sleep. Other aspects of hospital care that are based on the patient’s stability, such as cardiac monitoring, could also potentially benefit from this type of intervention, Dr. Najafi and his colleagues suggest.

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

Routine checks of vital signs during the night often prevent hospitalized patients from getting sufficient recuperative sleep. But patients who are judged to be clinically stable by an algorithm that uses real-time data can be safely spared these checks, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In their study, Nader Najafi, MD, MAS, from the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues were able to significantly reduce the number of checks at night without increasing transfers to the intensive care ward or heart-alarm triggers.

“Sleep is crucial to health,” writes Hyung J. Cho, MD, from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, in an accompanying editorial. “Ironically, hospitals, where people go to recover from illness, are among the most difficult places to sleep.”

Number of night-time checks successfully reduced

The mean number of night-time checks was significantly lower in the algorithm group than in the standard-care group (0.97 vs. 1.41; P < .001).

The reduction in night-time checks had no effect on patient safety. There was no increase in transfers to the intensive care unit in the algorithm or standard-care groups (5% vs 5%; P = .92), and no difference between the number of heart alarms (0.2% vs. 0.9%; P = .07).

However, the reduction also had no effect on the incidence of episodes of delirium in the algorithm or standard-care groups (11% vs. 13%; P = .32).

“The reduction in vital signs checking, although statistically significant, was relatively small,” Dr. Cho explains. But the primary endpoint might have been different had the adherence to intervention been better, he notes.

In fact, the analysis confirmed that changes to routine daily practice in a hospital are not always easy to implement. In 35% of cases, the patients’ vital signs were checked at night, despite the physician’s order to the contrary.

“Busy patient-care assistants and nurses may check vital signs out of habit without noticing that the order has changed for some of the patients,” Dr. Najafi and his coauthors write. Many hospitals are used to thinking that regular measurements of the vital signs are part of good practice.
 

Include nursing staff

Future projects should use an interdisciplinary approach that includes nursing staff, Dr. Cho recommends. More user-friendly displays and optimized alerts in the electronic patient records could also encourage better implementation of the orders.

Less frequent checks of the vital signs would be welcomed by frontline staff because it would lighten their already heavy workload, he adds.

Although the study didn’t meet its primary endpoint, patients subjected to fewer night-time checks because of the algorithm were able to get a good night’s sleep. Other aspects of hospital care that are based on the patient’s stability, such as cardiac monitoring, could also potentially benefit from this type of intervention, Dr. Najafi and his colleagues suggest.

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.

The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.

University of Maryland Medical Center

“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”

“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”

‘Still a nascent technology’

“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?

That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”

Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”

Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”

For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.

“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.

The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
 

‘This field needs to evolve’

Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”

It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”

“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.

“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”

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

Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.

The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.

University of Maryland Medical Center

“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”

“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”

‘Still a nascent technology’

“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?

That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”

Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”

Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”

For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.

“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.

The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
 

‘This field needs to evolve’

Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”

It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”

“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.

“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”

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

Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.

The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.

University of Maryland Medical Center

“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”

“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”

‘Still a nascent technology’

“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?

That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”

Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”

Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”

For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.

“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.

The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
 

‘This field needs to evolve’

Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”

It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”

“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.

“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”

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