An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Given clinical and imaging outcomes, as well as results on IHC assay, this patient is diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and is referred for further consultation with a multidisciplinary care team.

Triple-negative breast cancer accounts for 15% of all female breast cancer cases. The term "triple-negative" refers to the absence of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) targets and the HER2 target for treatment. Otherwise, triple-negative breast cancer is highly heterogeneous and includes multiple molecular subtypes. Typically, triple-negative breast cancer occurs in younger patients, has a higher grade, a greater tumor size, a higher clinical stage at diagnosis, and a poorer prognosis than non–triple-negative breast cancers.

Biopsy samples from patients with a new primary or newly metastatic breast cancer diagnosis should undergo HR testing, both ER and PR, as well as HER2 receptor testing. Results of ER and PR testing are negative if a validated IHC assay shows 0% to < 1% of nuclei stain, according to the latest American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) HR testing guideline. HER2 results are negative if a validated IHC assay shows weak to moderate complete membrane staining in < 10% of tumor cells, according to ASCO/CAP guidelines. If HER2 results of a primary tumor are negative and specific clinical criteria suggest further testing, the oncologist may choose to order another IHC assay or a validated dual probe in situ hybridization (ISH) assay to aid in clinical decision-making.

Pathologic classification of triple-negative breast cancers includes multiple subgroups determined by therapeutic possibilities: low-risk histologic types (salivary gland–like carcinomas, fibromatosis-like carcinoma, low-grade adenosquamous breast carcinoma), immune activation (tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, CD8, programmed death–ligand 1, tumor mutational burden), HER2-low status (IHC score 1+/2+ nonamplified), associated germline BRCA mutations, and other targets (trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, HER3). 

Family history is the most common risk factor for developing breast cancer. If a person's mother or sister had breast cancer, the lifetime risk for that individual is four times greater than that of the general population. Risk for breast cancer grows even more if two or more first-degree relatives are diagnosed, or if one first-degree relative was diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 50 years of age. About 25% of triple-negative breast cancer cases have accompanying germline BRCA mutations. A recent study by Ahearn and colleagues found that 85 variants were linked to one or more tumor feature of ER-negative disease, and 32 of those variants were associated with triple-negative disease.

For a breast cancer diagnosis, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends multidisciplinary care as well as the development of a personalized survivorship treatment plan, which includes a customized summary of possible long-term treatment toxicities. In addition, multidisciplinary care coordination encourages close follow-up that helps patients adhere to their medications and stay current with ongoing screening.

Because triple-negative breast cancer lacks HR and HER2 therapeutic targets, it can be difficult to treat. Standard therapy for high-risk triple-negative tumors includes chemotherapy with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) plus anthracycline-based treatment (cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with stage 2 and 3 tumors to reduce locoregional surgical extension and to allow for personalized treatment based on pathologic response. In 2018, two poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, olaparib and talazoparib, were approved for use in select patients with triple-negative breast cancer, significantly changing the treatment paradigm for this disease. Other promising treatments have emerged recently in clinical trials for triple-negative disease, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors, and cytotoxin-conjugated antibodies.

Daniel S. Schwartz, MD, is Medical Director of Thoracic Oncology, St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center, Catholic Health Services, Smithtown, New York.

Dr. Schwartz serve(d) as a member of the following medical societies:
American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Western Thoracic Surgical Association.

Disclosure: Daniel S. Schwartz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
 

Given clinical and imaging outcomes, as well as results on IHC assay, this patient is diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and is referred for further consultation with a multidisciplinary care team.

Triple-negative breast cancer accounts for 15% of all female breast cancer cases. The term "triple-negative" refers to the absence of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) targets and the HER2 target for treatment. Otherwise, triple-negative breast cancer is highly heterogeneous and includes multiple molecular subtypes. Typically, triple-negative breast cancer occurs in younger patients, has a higher grade, a greater tumor size, a higher clinical stage at diagnosis, and a poorer prognosis than non–triple-negative breast cancers.

Biopsy samples from patients with a new primary or newly metastatic breast cancer diagnosis should undergo HR testing, both ER and PR, as well as HER2 receptor testing. Results of ER and PR testing are negative if a validated IHC assay shows 0% to < 1% of nuclei stain, according to the latest American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) HR testing guideline. HER2 results are negative if a validated IHC assay shows weak to moderate complete membrane staining in < 10% of tumor cells, according to ASCO/CAP guidelines. If HER2 results of a primary tumor are negative and specific clinical criteria suggest further testing, the oncologist may choose to order another IHC assay or a validated dual probe in situ hybridization (ISH) assay to aid in clinical decision-making.

Pathologic classification of triple-negative breast cancers includes multiple subgroups determined by therapeutic possibilities: low-risk histologic types (salivary gland–like carcinomas, fibromatosis-like carcinoma, low-grade adenosquamous breast carcinoma), immune activation (tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, CD8, programmed death–ligand 1, tumor mutational burden), HER2-low status (IHC score 1+/2+ nonamplified), associated germline BRCA mutations, and other targets (trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, HER3). 

Family history is the most common risk factor for developing breast cancer. If a person's mother or sister had breast cancer, the lifetime risk for that individual is four times greater than that of the general population. Risk for breast cancer grows even more if two or more first-degree relatives are diagnosed, or if one first-degree relative was diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 50 years of age. About 25% of triple-negative breast cancer cases have accompanying germline BRCA mutations. A recent study by Ahearn and colleagues found that 85 variants were linked to one or more tumor feature of ER-negative disease, and 32 of those variants were associated with triple-negative disease.

For a breast cancer diagnosis, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends multidisciplinary care as well as the development of a personalized survivorship treatment plan, which includes a customized summary of possible long-term treatment toxicities. In addition, multidisciplinary care coordination encourages close follow-up that helps patients adhere to their medications and stay current with ongoing screening.

Because triple-negative breast cancer lacks HR and HER2 therapeutic targets, it can be difficult to treat. Standard therapy for high-risk triple-negative tumors includes chemotherapy with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) plus anthracycline-based treatment (cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with stage 2 and 3 tumors to reduce locoregional surgical extension and to allow for personalized treatment based on pathologic response. In 2018, two poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, olaparib and talazoparib, were approved for use in select patients with triple-negative breast cancer, significantly changing the treatment paradigm for this disease. Other promising treatments have emerged recently in clinical trials for triple-negative disease, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors, and cytotoxin-conjugated antibodies.

Daniel S. Schwartz, MD, is Medical Director of Thoracic Oncology, St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center, Catholic Health Services, Smithtown, New York.

Dr. Schwartz serve(d) as a member of the following medical societies:
American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Western Thoracic Surgical Association.

Disclosure: Daniel S. Schwartz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
 

Given clinical and imaging outcomes, as well as results on IHC assay, this patient is diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and is referred for further consultation with a multidisciplinary care team.

Triple-negative breast cancer accounts for 15% of all female breast cancer cases. The term "triple-negative" refers to the absence of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) targets and the HER2 target for treatment. Otherwise, triple-negative breast cancer is highly heterogeneous and includes multiple molecular subtypes. Typically, triple-negative breast cancer occurs in younger patients, has a higher grade, a greater tumor size, a higher clinical stage at diagnosis, and a poorer prognosis than non–triple-negative breast cancers.

Biopsy samples from patients with a new primary or newly metastatic breast cancer diagnosis should undergo HR testing, both ER and PR, as well as HER2 receptor testing. Results of ER and PR testing are negative if a validated IHC assay shows 0% to < 1% of nuclei stain, according to the latest American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) HR testing guideline. HER2 results are negative if a validated IHC assay shows weak to moderate complete membrane staining in < 10% of tumor cells, according to ASCO/CAP guidelines. If HER2 results of a primary tumor are negative and specific clinical criteria suggest further testing, the oncologist may choose to order another IHC assay or a validated dual probe in situ hybridization (ISH) assay to aid in clinical decision-making.

Pathologic classification of triple-negative breast cancers includes multiple subgroups determined by therapeutic possibilities: low-risk histologic types (salivary gland–like carcinomas, fibromatosis-like carcinoma, low-grade adenosquamous breast carcinoma), immune activation (tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, CD8, programmed death–ligand 1, tumor mutational burden), HER2-low status (IHC score 1+/2+ nonamplified), associated germline BRCA mutations, and other targets (trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, HER3). 

Family history is the most common risk factor for developing breast cancer. If a person's mother or sister had breast cancer, the lifetime risk for that individual is four times greater than that of the general population. Risk for breast cancer grows even more if two or more first-degree relatives are diagnosed, or if one first-degree relative was diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 50 years of age. About 25% of triple-negative breast cancer cases have accompanying germline BRCA mutations. A recent study by Ahearn and colleagues found that 85 variants were linked to one or more tumor feature of ER-negative disease, and 32 of those variants were associated with triple-negative disease.

For a breast cancer diagnosis, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends multidisciplinary care as well as the development of a personalized survivorship treatment plan, which includes a customized summary of possible long-term treatment toxicities. In addition, multidisciplinary care coordination encourages close follow-up that helps patients adhere to their medications and stay current with ongoing screening.

Because triple-negative breast cancer lacks HR and HER2 therapeutic targets, it can be difficult to treat. Standard therapy for high-risk triple-negative tumors includes chemotherapy with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) plus anthracycline-based treatment (cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with stage 2 and 3 tumors to reduce locoregional surgical extension and to allow for personalized treatment based on pathologic response. In 2018, two poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, olaparib and talazoparib, were approved for use in select patients with triple-negative breast cancer, significantly changing the treatment paradigm for this disease. Other promising treatments have emerged recently in clinical trials for triple-negative disease, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors, and cytotoxin-conjugated antibodies.

Daniel S. Schwartz, MD, is Medical Director of Thoracic Oncology, St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center, Catholic Health Services, Smithtown, New York.

Dr. Schwartz serve(d) as a member of the following medical societies:
American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Western Thoracic Surgical Association.

Disclosure: Daniel S. Schwartz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
 

To lose weight, patients with obesity may be more interested in semaglutide products, but the glucagon-like peptide I agonists, such as Ozempic injections and Rybelsus tablets, are not yet cost-effective, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.

“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.

Penn Medicine

“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”

The study was published in Gut.
 

Cost Concerns

One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.

Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.

Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.

On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.

“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.

The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), class II (35-29.9 kg/m²), and class III (>40kg/m²) obesity.

Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
 

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments

When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.

In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).

“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.

The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.

But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.

“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.

“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”

Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.

At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.

One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.

One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

To lose weight, patients with obesity may be more interested in semaglutide products, but the glucagon-like peptide I agonists, such as Ozempic injections and Rybelsus tablets, are not yet cost-effective, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.

“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.

Penn Medicine

“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”

The study was published in Gut.
 

Cost Concerns

One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.

Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.

Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.

On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.

“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.

The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), class II (35-29.9 kg/m²), and class III (>40kg/m²) obesity.

Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
 

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments

When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.

In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).

“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.

The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.

But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.

“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.

“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”

Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.

At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.

One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.

One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

To lose weight, patients with obesity may be more interested in semaglutide products, but the glucagon-like peptide I agonists, such as Ozempic injections and Rybelsus tablets, are not yet cost-effective, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.

“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.

Penn Medicine

“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”

The study was published in Gut.
 

Cost Concerns

One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.

Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.

Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.

On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.

“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.

The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), class II (35-29.9 kg/m²), and class III (>40kg/m²) obesity.

Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
 

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments

When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.

In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).

“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.

The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.

But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.

“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.

“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”

Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.

At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.

One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.

One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

I have received lots of notes from readers about other pet peeves they have about practicing primary care in our current environment and wanted to share some of them. I appreciate all the emails I received on this topic.

• The rapid increase in the number of hospital administrators in the last 50 years

This has increased health system costs without providing any relief for practicing physicians, and often has led to policies that have been harmful and detrimental. This would be a great place to start cutting back to get true savings without affecting quality of care.

• Emergency physicians and specialists who refer my patient elsewhere for a service we provide in our office

It is expensive for patients to go to a specialty provider for a simple procedure that can be easily done in a primary care practice, or to be referred to see a specialist for a problem that does not need specialty care. This creates further problems accessing specialists.

• Online reviews of practices, including reviews from people who have never been patients

I am concerned about the accuracy and intent of online reviews. If a patient is upset because they did not receive an antibiotic or narcotic, they can vent their frustration in a review, when what the medical professional was actually doing was good medicine. More concerning to me is that some organizations use these reviews to determine compensation, promotion, and support. These reviews are not evidence based or accurately collected.

• Offices and organizations being dropped by insurance carriers

Insurance companies are running amok. They make their own rules, which can devastate practices and patients. They can change fees paid unilaterally, and drop practices without explanation or valid reasons. Patients suffer terribly because they now cannot see their long-time physicians or they have to pay much more to see them as they are suddenly “out of network.”

• The lack of appreciation by organizations as well as the general public of the enormous cost savings primary care professionals contribute to the healthcare system

There are many studies showing that patients who see a primary care physician save the system money and have better health outcomes. US adults who regularly see a primary care physician have 33% lower healthcare costs and 19% lower odds of dying prematurely than those who see only a specialist.¹

In one study, for every $1 invested in primary care, there was $13 in savings in healthcare costs.² I had a patient a few years ago complain about the “enormous” bill she received for a visit where I had done an annual exam, cryotherapy for three actinic keratoses, and a steroid injection for her ailing knee. The cost savings was well over $700 (the new patient cost for two specialty visits). There is no doubt that patients who have stable primary care save money themselves and for the whole medical system.
 

• The stress of being witness to a dysfunctional system

It is really hard to see the hurt and difficulty our patients go through on a daily basis while trying to navigate a broken system. We bear witness to them and listen to all the stories when things have gone wrong. This also takes its toll on us, as we are part of the system, and our patients’ frustrations sometimes boil over. We are also the ones who care for the whole patient, so every bad experience with a specialty clinic is shared with us.

Many thanks extended to those who wrote to share their ideas (Drs. Sylvia Androne, Bhawna Bahethi, Pierre Ghassibi, Richard Katz, Louis Kasunic, Rebecca Keenan, David Kosnosky, Gregory Miller, and James Wilkens).

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington, Seattle. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
 

References

1. Forbes.com. Why Primary Care Matters, and What We Can Do To Increase It. 2023 Nov 27.

2. Washingtonpost.com. A Health Care Solution We Can’t Afford to Ignore: Primary Care.

I have received lots of notes from readers about other pet peeves they have about practicing primary care in our current environment and wanted to share some of them. I appreciate all the emails I received on this topic.

• The rapid increase in the number of hospital administrators in the last 50 years

This has increased health system costs without providing any relief for practicing physicians, and often has led to policies that have been harmful and detrimental. This would be a great place to start cutting back to get true savings without affecting quality of care.

• Emergency physicians and specialists who refer my patient elsewhere for a service we provide in our office

It is expensive for patients to go to a specialty provider for a simple procedure that can be easily done in a primary care practice, or to be referred to see a specialist for a problem that does not need specialty care. This creates further problems accessing specialists.

• Online reviews of practices, including reviews from people who have never been patients

I am concerned about the accuracy and intent of online reviews. If a patient is upset because they did not receive an antibiotic or narcotic, they can vent their frustration in a review, when what the medical professional was actually doing was good medicine. More concerning to me is that some organizations use these reviews to determine compensation, promotion, and support. These reviews are not evidence based or accurately collected.

• Offices and organizations being dropped by insurance carriers

Insurance companies are running amok. They make their own rules, which can devastate practices and patients. They can change fees paid unilaterally, and drop practices without explanation or valid reasons. Patients suffer terribly because they now cannot see their long-time physicians or they have to pay much more to see them as they are suddenly “out of network.”

• The lack of appreciation by organizations as well as the general public of the enormous cost savings primary care professionals contribute to the healthcare system

There are many studies showing that patients who see a primary care physician save the system money and have better health outcomes. US adults who regularly see a primary care physician have 33% lower healthcare costs and 19% lower odds of dying prematurely than those who see only a specialist.¹

In one study, for every $1 invested in primary care, there was $13 in savings in healthcare costs.² I had a patient a few years ago complain about the “enormous” bill she received for a visit where I had done an annual exam, cryotherapy for three actinic keratoses, and a steroid injection for her ailing knee. The cost savings was well over $700 (the new patient cost for two specialty visits). There is no doubt that patients who have stable primary care save money themselves and for the whole medical system.
 

• The stress of being witness to a dysfunctional system

It is really hard to see the hurt and difficulty our patients go through on a daily basis while trying to navigate a broken system. We bear witness to them and listen to all the stories when things have gone wrong. This also takes its toll on us, as we are part of the system, and our patients’ frustrations sometimes boil over. We are also the ones who care for the whole patient, so every bad experience with a specialty clinic is shared with us.

Many thanks extended to those who wrote to share their ideas (Drs. Sylvia Androne, Bhawna Bahethi, Pierre Ghassibi, Richard Katz, Louis Kasunic, Rebecca Keenan, David Kosnosky, Gregory Miller, and James Wilkens).

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington, Seattle. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
 

References

1. Forbes.com. Why Primary Care Matters, and What We Can Do To Increase It. 2023 Nov 27.

2. Washingtonpost.com. A Health Care Solution We Can’t Afford to Ignore: Primary Care.

I have received lots of notes from readers about other pet peeves they have about practicing primary care in our current environment and wanted to share some of them. I appreciate all the emails I received on this topic.

• The rapid increase in the number of hospital administrators in the last 50 years

This has increased health system costs without providing any relief for practicing physicians, and often has led to policies that have been harmful and detrimental. This would be a great place to start cutting back to get true savings without affecting quality of care.

• Emergency physicians and specialists who refer my patient elsewhere for a service we provide in our office

It is expensive for patients to go to a specialty provider for a simple procedure that can be easily done in a primary care practice, or to be referred to see a specialist for a problem that does not need specialty care. This creates further problems accessing specialists.

• Online reviews of practices, including reviews from people who have never been patients

I am concerned about the accuracy and intent of online reviews. If a patient is upset because they did not receive an antibiotic or narcotic, they can vent their frustration in a review, when what the medical professional was actually doing was good medicine. More concerning to me is that some organizations use these reviews to determine compensation, promotion, and support. These reviews are not evidence based or accurately collected.

• Offices and organizations being dropped by insurance carriers

Insurance companies are running amok. They make their own rules, which can devastate practices and patients. They can change fees paid unilaterally, and drop practices without explanation or valid reasons. Patients suffer terribly because they now cannot see their long-time physicians or they have to pay much more to see them as they are suddenly “out of network.”

• The lack of appreciation by organizations as well as the general public of the enormous cost savings primary care professionals contribute to the healthcare system

There are many studies showing that patients who see a primary care physician save the system money and have better health outcomes. US adults who regularly see a primary care physician have 33% lower healthcare costs and 19% lower odds of dying prematurely than those who see only a specialist.¹

In one study, for every $1 invested in primary care, there was $13 in savings in healthcare costs.² I had a patient a few years ago complain about the “enormous” bill she received for a visit where I had done an annual exam, cryotherapy for three actinic keratoses, and a steroid injection for her ailing knee. The cost savings was well over $700 (the new patient cost for two specialty visits). There is no doubt that patients who have stable primary care save money themselves and for the whole medical system.
 

• The stress of being witness to a dysfunctional system

It is really hard to see the hurt and difficulty our patients go through on a daily basis while trying to navigate a broken system. We bear witness to them and listen to all the stories when things have gone wrong. This also takes its toll on us, as we are part of the system, and our patients’ frustrations sometimes boil over. We are also the ones who care for the whole patient, so every bad experience with a specialty clinic is shared with us.

Many thanks extended to those who wrote to share their ideas (Drs. Sylvia Androne, Bhawna Bahethi, Pierre Ghassibi, Richard Katz, Louis Kasunic, Rebecca Keenan, David Kosnosky, Gregory Miller, and James Wilkens).

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington, Seattle. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
 

References

1. Forbes.com. Why Primary Care Matters, and What We Can Do To Increase It. 2023 Nov 27.

2. Washingtonpost.com. A Health Care Solution We Can’t Afford to Ignore: Primary Care.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The researchers found no difference in 5-year axillary or invasive recurrence rates whether women had axillary dissections or not. The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.

Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.

“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.

Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.

So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.

Study details

The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.

Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.

Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.

Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.

Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.

The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.

The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.

The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).

Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.

“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.

The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The researchers found no difference in 5-year axillary or invasive recurrence rates whether women had axillary dissections or not. The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.

Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.

“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.

Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.

So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.

Study details

The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.

Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.

Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.

Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.

Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.

The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.

The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.

The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).

Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.

“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.

The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.

SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The researchers found no difference in 5-year axillary or invasive recurrence rates whether women had axillary dissections or not. The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.

Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.

“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.

Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.

So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.

Study details

The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.

Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.

Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.

Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.

Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.

The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.

The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.

The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).

Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.

“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.

The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”