Sam Chavarría said her doctor was clear about the birth defects her medication could cause if she became pregnant but agreed to keep her on it as long as she had an IUD.

As she was waiting to get her contraceptive intrauterine device replaced at her local clinic, however, the billing nurse told her that her insurance wouldn’t cover the removal – or a new IUD. Chavarría didn’t understand why not.

“Then she said very delicately, ‘Well, people on this insurance typically tend to be older,’ ” Chavarría recalled.

Although Chavarría is 34, she is enrolled in Medicare, the government insurance program designed for those 65 and older. Chavarría, who lives in Houston, is disabled by fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and mental health issues. Medicare automatically enrolls anyone who has received Social Security disability benefits for two years and this was her first time getting an IUD while in the government program.

Without insurance, just removing her expired IUD would cost Chavarría $350 out of pocket; exchanging it for a new one would be $2,000. She left the clinic in tears.

Chavarría’s experience is not rare. Medicare was originally intended for people of retirement age. Over the years, the program has evolved to include new populations, such as those who have disabilities or are critically ill, said Jennifer Lea Huer, a public health expert at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. In 2020, 1.7 million people ages 18-44 were enrolled in Medicare.

An estimated 70% of childbearing-age women on Medicare are also eligible for Medicaid, a state and federal program for those with low incomes, which should fill the gap for contraception. It’s not clear how many transgender or nonbinary people – who also might need contraception – are on Medicare or are eligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid, like the plans offered via the federal Affordable Care Act, mandates coverage of birth control. But those who aren’t eligible for Medicaid are left in the lurch – Medicare’s origins mean it does not require access to birth control.

Traditional Medicare includes two parts: Part A covers hospital costs, while Part B covers physicians’ care and certain other services, such as ambulance rides. Neither ordinarily includes contraception.

People can get contraception through a Medicare Advantage plan or Part D of Medicare, which covers prescription drugs, but those come at a cost. And even people who pay for Part D often aren’t covered for some types of birth control, such as IUDs.

“So, if you are disabled, if you are locked outside of the labor market, if you do not have the means or any other way to financially support yourself, you were likely still on traditional Medicare, which is Part A and Part B,” Huer said. “In which case, your access to contraception is incredibly difficult.”

Contraception for those with traditional Medicare is given on a case-by-case basis, Huer said. It can be covered only if a doctor can make a credible case that the patient needs it for medical reasons – because their body cannot sustain a pregnancy – as opposed to merely wanting to avoid one.

“You have to have a champion physician who’s willing to partner with you and make those arguments,” Huer said.

That’s what Chavarría’s doctor tried to do. Before she left the clinic, staffers there told her they would try to make the case she needed the IUD for medical reasons. The IUD exchange was scheduled almost 10 weeks later, but during those weeks, she got pregnant. Her body couldn’t sustain a pregnancy, so she and her partner rushed to get an abortion just before Texas tightened its rules Sept. 1, 2021.

“If Medicare had just covered the IUD removal or exchange to begin with, none of this would have happened,” Chavarría said. “It would have saved me having to make a really tough decision that I never thought I’d have to make.”

Women with disabilities often face a stigma from health care practitioners, especially when it comes to birth control, said Willi Horner-Johnson, a public health researcher specializing in disabilities at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. In her research, women with disabilities have described being treated like children or having to go to multiple doctors to find someone with whom they felt comfortable.

“We don’t want to acknowledge that disabled people have sex,” said Miriam Garber, a 36-year-old sex worker who lives in Rhode Island and is also on Medicare because of her disabilities. Garber got an IUD from Planned Parenthood because her insurance wouldn’t cover it.

Even those who pay for Part D to have their prescription drugs covered and have a “champion physician” face difficulties. Liz Moore, a nonbinary person in their 30s who lives in the Washington, D.C., area, could not get Medicare to pay for the Mirena IUD their doctor prescribed for their polycystic ovary syndrome. Moore is disabled with fibromyalgia and dysautonomia, a condition of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates breathing, heart rate, and more.

“After literally months of phone calls, it seemed like my Medicare Part D and original Medicare could not agree on who should pay for my IUD,” they wrote in a direct message. “Was it a prescription or durable medical equipment?”

When Moore finally learned it would cost $800 upfront, they said, they decided to get a hysterectomy – which Medicare would pay for – instead.

Chavarría’s doctor told her a tubal ligation also was more likely to be approved by Medicare than an IUD, because older people have that procedure more often. Like all surgeries, both come with risks of complications and recovery.

Even for those on both Medicare and Medicaid, getting contraception also isn’t always easy, as in Katie Elizabeth Walsh’s case.

Walsh, 34, who lives in northeastern Connecticut, is disabled by a traumatic brain injury, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome. She got an IUD at an ob.gyn. clinic and was told there her insurance would cover it.

Then she got a bill for nearly $2,000.

Medicaid should cover contraceptive devices for dual-eligibility people, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy guidance, but when Walsh tried to get her bill covered, Medicare and Medicaid could not agree on which of them should pay.

“Every single time I have called one of the insurance offices, they are like, ‘Oh, no, you have to talk to the other one, and we don’t really talk to each other,’ ” Walsh said.

Walsh said the hassle to get her contraception covered feels like a kick in the stomach: “Like truly you do not have a place in this world, and your insurance is telling you that.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Sam Chavarría said her doctor was clear about the birth defects her medication could cause if she became pregnant but agreed to keep her on it as long as she had an IUD.

As she was waiting to get her contraceptive intrauterine device replaced at her local clinic, however, the billing nurse told her that her insurance wouldn’t cover the removal – or a new IUD. Chavarría didn’t understand why not.

“Then she said very delicately, ‘Well, people on this insurance typically tend to be older,’ ” Chavarría recalled.

Although Chavarría is 34, she is enrolled in Medicare, the government insurance program designed for those 65 and older. Chavarría, who lives in Houston, is disabled by fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and mental health issues. Medicare automatically enrolls anyone who has received Social Security disability benefits for two years and this was her first time getting an IUD while in the government program.

Without insurance, just removing her expired IUD would cost Chavarría $350 out of pocket; exchanging it for a new one would be $2,000. She left the clinic in tears.

Chavarría’s experience is not rare. Medicare was originally intended for people of retirement age. Over the years, the program has evolved to include new populations, such as those who have disabilities or are critically ill, said Jennifer Lea Huer, a public health expert at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. In 2020, 1.7 million people ages 18-44 were enrolled in Medicare.

An estimated 70% of childbearing-age women on Medicare are also eligible for Medicaid, a state and federal program for those with low incomes, which should fill the gap for contraception. It’s not clear how many transgender or nonbinary people – who also might need contraception – are on Medicare or are eligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid, like the plans offered via the federal Affordable Care Act, mandates coverage of birth control. But those who aren’t eligible for Medicaid are left in the lurch – Medicare’s origins mean it does not require access to birth control.

Traditional Medicare includes two parts: Part A covers hospital costs, while Part B covers physicians’ care and certain other services, such as ambulance rides. Neither ordinarily includes contraception.

People can get contraception through a Medicare Advantage plan or Part D of Medicare, which covers prescription drugs, but those come at a cost. And even people who pay for Part D often aren’t covered for some types of birth control, such as IUDs.

“So, if you are disabled, if you are locked outside of the labor market, if you do not have the means or any other way to financially support yourself, you were likely still on traditional Medicare, which is Part A and Part B,” Huer said. “In which case, your access to contraception is incredibly difficult.”

Contraception for those with traditional Medicare is given on a case-by-case basis, Huer said. It can be covered only if a doctor can make a credible case that the patient needs it for medical reasons – because their body cannot sustain a pregnancy – as opposed to merely wanting to avoid one.

“You have to have a champion physician who’s willing to partner with you and make those arguments,” Huer said.

That’s what Chavarría’s doctor tried to do. Before she left the clinic, staffers there told her they would try to make the case she needed the IUD for medical reasons. The IUD exchange was scheduled almost 10 weeks later, but during those weeks, she got pregnant. Her body couldn’t sustain a pregnancy, so she and her partner rushed to get an abortion just before Texas tightened its rules Sept. 1, 2021.

“If Medicare had just covered the IUD removal or exchange to begin with, none of this would have happened,” Chavarría said. “It would have saved me having to make a really tough decision that I never thought I’d have to make.”

Women with disabilities often face a stigma from health care practitioners, especially when it comes to birth control, said Willi Horner-Johnson, a public health researcher specializing in disabilities at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. In her research, women with disabilities have described being treated like children or having to go to multiple doctors to find someone with whom they felt comfortable.

“We don’t want to acknowledge that disabled people have sex,” said Miriam Garber, a 36-year-old sex worker who lives in Rhode Island and is also on Medicare because of her disabilities. Garber got an IUD from Planned Parenthood because her insurance wouldn’t cover it.

Even those who pay for Part D to have their prescription drugs covered and have a “champion physician” face difficulties. Liz Moore, a nonbinary person in their 30s who lives in the Washington, D.C., area, could not get Medicare to pay for the Mirena IUD their doctor prescribed for their polycystic ovary syndrome. Moore is disabled with fibromyalgia and dysautonomia, a condition of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates breathing, heart rate, and more.

“After literally months of phone calls, it seemed like my Medicare Part D and original Medicare could not agree on who should pay for my IUD,” they wrote in a direct message. “Was it a prescription or durable medical equipment?”

When Moore finally learned it would cost $800 upfront, they said, they decided to get a hysterectomy – which Medicare would pay for – instead.

Chavarría’s doctor told her a tubal ligation also was more likely to be approved by Medicare than an IUD, because older people have that procedure more often. Like all surgeries, both come with risks of complications and recovery.

Even for those on both Medicare and Medicaid, getting contraception also isn’t always easy, as in Katie Elizabeth Walsh’s case.

Walsh, 34, who lives in northeastern Connecticut, is disabled by a traumatic brain injury, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome. She got an IUD at an ob.gyn. clinic and was told there her insurance would cover it.

Then she got a bill for nearly $2,000.

Medicaid should cover contraceptive devices for dual-eligibility people, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy guidance, but when Walsh tried to get her bill covered, Medicare and Medicaid could not agree on which of them should pay.

“Every single time I have called one of the insurance offices, they are like, ‘Oh, no, you have to talk to the other one, and we don’t really talk to each other,’ ” Walsh said.

Walsh said the hassle to get her contraception covered feels like a kick in the stomach: “Like truly you do not have a place in this world, and your insurance is telling you that.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Sam Chavarría said her doctor was clear about the birth defects her medication could cause if she became pregnant but agreed to keep her on it as long as she had an IUD.

As she was waiting to get her contraceptive intrauterine device replaced at her local clinic, however, the billing nurse told her that her insurance wouldn’t cover the removal – or a new IUD. Chavarría didn’t understand why not.

“Then she said very delicately, ‘Well, people on this insurance typically tend to be older,’ ” Chavarría recalled.

Although Chavarría is 34, she is enrolled in Medicare, the government insurance program designed for those 65 and older. Chavarría, who lives in Houston, is disabled by fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and mental health issues. Medicare automatically enrolls anyone who has received Social Security disability benefits for two years and this was her first time getting an IUD while in the government program.

Without insurance, just removing her expired IUD would cost Chavarría $350 out of pocket; exchanging it for a new one would be $2,000. She left the clinic in tears.

Chavarría’s experience is not rare. Medicare was originally intended for people of retirement age. Over the years, the program has evolved to include new populations, such as those who have disabilities or are critically ill, said Jennifer Lea Huer, a public health expert at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. In 2020, 1.7 million people ages 18-44 were enrolled in Medicare.

An estimated 70% of childbearing-age women on Medicare are also eligible for Medicaid, a state and federal program for those with low incomes, which should fill the gap for contraception. It’s not clear how many transgender or nonbinary people – who also might need contraception – are on Medicare or are eligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid, like the plans offered via the federal Affordable Care Act, mandates coverage of birth control. But those who aren’t eligible for Medicaid are left in the lurch – Medicare’s origins mean it does not require access to birth control.

Traditional Medicare includes two parts: Part A covers hospital costs, while Part B covers physicians’ care and certain other services, such as ambulance rides. Neither ordinarily includes contraception.

People can get contraception through a Medicare Advantage plan or Part D of Medicare, which covers prescription drugs, but those come at a cost. And even people who pay for Part D often aren’t covered for some types of birth control, such as IUDs.

“So, if you are disabled, if you are locked outside of the labor market, if you do not have the means or any other way to financially support yourself, you were likely still on traditional Medicare, which is Part A and Part B,” Huer said. “In which case, your access to contraception is incredibly difficult.”

Contraception for those with traditional Medicare is given on a case-by-case basis, Huer said. It can be covered only if a doctor can make a credible case that the patient needs it for medical reasons – because their body cannot sustain a pregnancy – as opposed to merely wanting to avoid one.

“You have to have a champion physician who’s willing to partner with you and make those arguments,” Huer said.

That’s what Chavarría’s doctor tried to do. Before she left the clinic, staffers there told her they would try to make the case she needed the IUD for medical reasons. The IUD exchange was scheduled almost 10 weeks later, but during those weeks, she got pregnant. Her body couldn’t sustain a pregnancy, so she and her partner rushed to get an abortion just before Texas tightened its rules Sept. 1, 2021.

“If Medicare had just covered the IUD removal or exchange to begin with, none of this would have happened,” Chavarría said. “It would have saved me having to make a really tough decision that I never thought I’d have to make.”

Women with disabilities often face a stigma from health care practitioners, especially when it comes to birth control, said Willi Horner-Johnson, a public health researcher specializing in disabilities at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. In her research, women with disabilities have described being treated like children or having to go to multiple doctors to find someone with whom they felt comfortable.

“We don’t want to acknowledge that disabled people have sex,” said Miriam Garber, a 36-year-old sex worker who lives in Rhode Island and is also on Medicare because of her disabilities. Garber got an IUD from Planned Parenthood because her insurance wouldn’t cover it.

Even those who pay for Part D to have their prescription drugs covered and have a “champion physician” face difficulties. Liz Moore, a nonbinary person in their 30s who lives in the Washington, D.C., area, could not get Medicare to pay for the Mirena IUD their doctor prescribed for their polycystic ovary syndrome. Moore is disabled with fibromyalgia and dysautonomia, a condition of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates breathing, heart rate, and more.

“After literally months of phone calls, it seemed like my Medicare Part D and original Medicare could not agree on who should pay for my IUD,” they wrote in a direct message. “Was it a prescription or durable medical equipment?”

When Moore finally learned it would cost $800 upfront, they said, they decided to get a hysterectomy – which Medicare would pay for – instead.

Chavarría’s doctor told her a tubal ligation also was more likely to be approved by Medicare than an IUD, because older people have that procedure more often. Like all surgeries, both come with risks of complications and recovery.

Even for those on both Medicare and Medicaid, getting contraception also isn’t always easy, as in Katie Elizabeth Walsh’s case.

Walsh, 34, who lives in northeastern Connecticut, is disabled by a traumatic brain injury, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome. She got an IUD at an ob.gyn. clinic and was told there her insurance would cover it.

Then she got a bill for nearly $2,000.

Medicaid should cover contraceptive devices for dual-eligibility people, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy guidance, but when Walsh tried to get her bill covered, Medicare and Medicaid could not agree on which of them should pay.

“Every single time I have called one of the insurance offices, they are like, ‘Oh, no, you have to talk to the other one, and we don’t really talk to each other,’ ” Walsh said.

Walsh said the hassle to get her contraception covered feels like a kick in the stomach: “Like truly you do not have a place in this world, and your insurance is telling you that.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Sales of a best-selling health book by a high-profile University of Southern California, Los Angeles, oncologist have been suspended because of dozens of instances of plagiarism.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week that it identified at least 95 instances of plagiarism by author David B. Agus, MD, in “The Book of Animal Secrets: Nature’s Lessons for a Long and Happy Life.”

According to the LA Times, Dr. Agus copied passages from numerous sources, including The New York Times, National Geographic, Wikipedia, and smaller niche sites. Some instances involved a sentence or two; others involved multiparagraph, word-for-word copying without attribution.

The book by Dr. Agus – who interviews celebrities for a health-related miniseries on Paramount Plus – had reached the top spot on Amazon’s list of best-selling books about animals a week before its planned March 7 release.

Publisher Simon & Schuster released a statement announcing a recall of the book at Dr. Agus’ expense “until a fully revised and corrected edition can be released.”

Dr. Agus included his own statement apologizing “to the scientists and writers whose work or words were used or not fully attributed,” and said he will “rewrite the passages in question with new language, will provide proper and full attribution, and when ready will announce a new publication date.”

“Writers should always be credited for their work, and I deeply regret these mistakes and the lack of rigor in finalizing the book,” he stated, adding that “[t]his book contains important lessons, messages, and guidance about health that I wanted to convey to the readers. I do not want these mistakes to interfere with that effort.”
 

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

Sales of a best-selling health book by a high-profile University of Southern California, Los Angeles, oncologist have been suspended because of dozens of instances of plagiarism.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week that it identified at least 95 instances of plagiarism by author David B. Agus, MD, in “The Book of Animal Secrets: Nature’s Lessons for a Long and Happy Life.”

According to the LA Times, Dr. Agus copied passages from numerous sources, including The New York Times, National Geographic, Wikipedia, and smaller niche sites. Some instances involved a sentence or two; others involved multiparagraph, word-for-word copying without attribution.

The book by Dr. Agus – who interviews celebrities for a health-related miniseries on Paramount Plus – had reached the top spot on Amazon’s list of best-selling books about animals a week before its planned March 7 release.

Publisher Simon & Schuster released a statement announcing a recall of the book at Dr. Agus’ expense “until a fully revised and corrected edition can be released.”

Dr. Agus included his own statement apologizing “to the scientists and writers whose work or words were used or not fully attributed,” and said he will “rewrite the passages in question with new language, will provide proper and full attribution, and when ready will announce a new publication date.”

“Writers should always be credited for their work, and I deeply regret these mistakes and the lack of rigor in finalizing the book,” he stated, adding that “[t]his book contains important lessons, messages, and guidance about health that I wanted to convey to the readers. I do not want these mistakes to interfere with that effort.”
 

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

Sales of a best-selling health book by a high-profile University of Southern California, Los Angeles, oncologist have been suspended because of dozens of instances of plagiarism.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week that it identified at least 95 instances of plagiarism by author David B. Agus, MD, in “The Book of Animal Secrets: Nature’s Lessons for a Long and Happy Life.”

According to the LA Times, Dr. Agus copied passages from numerous sources, including The New York Times, National Geographic, Wikipedia, and smaller niche sites. Some instances involved a sentence or two; others involved multiparagraph, word-for-word copying without attribution.

The book by Dr. Agus – who interviews celebrities for a health-related miniseries on Paramount Plus – had reached the top spot on Amazon’s list of best-selling books about animals a week before its planned March 7 release.

Publisher Simon & Schuster released a statement announcing a recall of the book at Dr. Agus’ expense “until a fully revised and corrected edition can be released.”

Dr. Agus included his own statement apologizing “to the scientists and writers whose work or words were used or not fully attributed,” and said he will “rewrite the passages in question with new language, will provide proper and full attribution, and when ready will announce a new publication date.”

“Writers should always be credited for their work, and I deeply regret these mistakes and the lack of rigor in finalizing the book,” he stated, adding that “[t]his book contains important lessons, messages, and guidance about health that I wanted to convey to the readers. I do not want these mistakes to interfere with that effort.”
 

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new wearable device detects, with a high degree of precision, various types of visual dysfunction, which eventually affects most patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The device uses advanced digital technology to stimulate the retina and the occipital cortex while also stimulating the eye tracking system, and reports out this data, one of its developers, Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of neuroimmunology research, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“In one paradigm of testing, we can get both sets of information,” which eliminates the complicated equipment set-up used by neuro-ophthalmologists, and makes eye assessments more readily available, she said.

“We can make this accessible for more clinicians and more patients, even eventually having it in an emergency setting or an outpatient clinic setting.”

Dr. Graves discussed this and other next-generation digital tools at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Currently, patients with MS can use accelerometers that determine overall activity level and devices that detect heart rate variability. They can also access mobile apps that track symptoms and medication adherence.
 

Limited sensitivity of current tools

However, current tools used to determine disability in MS are limited. The classification of MS subtypes is largely retrospective, and the preferred Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is problematic, said Dr. Graves.

For example, she said, the EDSS lacks sensitivity to short-term changes, depends on ambulation, and only poorly captures upper-extremity disability. “We know our patients are experiencing change and we know the tools we have now aren’t capturing that.”

She used the example of a pianist who can no longer play well with her right hand, but this can’t be detected with current tools. A device that uses technology from the gaming and computer control industry “can quantify that” change, said Dr. Graves.

She added that tools in development can detect not only motor and visual dysfunction but also cognitive dysfunction, potentially aiding clinical care and facilitating more rapid trials of disease modifying agents in MS. “Rather than having descriptive terms, these digital tools will help us quantitate change so we can take action.”

The new sensing devices use multiple sensors, including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and surface electrical signals in muscles to capture very precise temporal and textural information related to movement. Their development uses traditional signal processing as well as artificial intelligence approaches.

Dr. Graves’s device, the MSight, captures afferent and efferent visual function with a single mobile brain-computer interface.

At least 80% of patients with MS have some measurable dysfunction in the afferent system that oversees how light from the environment is turned into images in the brain, explained Dr. Graves. The efferent visual system that controls eye movements is also “profoundly impacted by MS” with, again, up to 80% of patients with MS experiencing related dysfunction, she said.

Her new visual system correlates with burden of MS disease, said Dr. Graves. “Having efferent and eye tracking problems correlates with overall disability and walking function.”

The information collected by this new device “tends to be really helpful even in people who don’t appear to be disabled with MS because it’s literally a window into the brain to let us see what’s happening,” said Dr. Graves.

She and her colleagues are testing the MSight device in clinical trials and have a provisional patent for it.
 

Finger and foot taps

Another device her team is developing detects minute changes over several months in finger and toe tap movements that are very difficult for the human eye to capture.

Dr. Graves reported on a cross sectional validation study of 17 patients with MS showing the foot and finger tap measures strongly correlated with the EDSS and patient-reported outcomes (P < .0001). A longitudinal analysis of 68 patients with MS found information on finger and foot taps distinguished those with progressive from those with relapsing MS.

“We found that in patients with progressive MS, the information in the signal we were capturing was changing, whereas someone with relapsing MS had a little bit of that but much less,” said Dr. Graves.

These and other novel, self-contained devices “will provide a set of neurological vital signs that we can put in the hands of clinicians and patients” with MS, as is currently being done in other specialties – for example, cardiology, said Dr. Graves.
 

Intriguing, exciting

In a comment, David Gosselin, PhD, associate professor, department of molecular medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, who cochaired the session featuring next-generation digital tools, said more sensitive monitoring technologies coming down the pipeline are “intriguing and exciting.”

While the devices are still in early development, “the eventual integration of such noninvasive technology that measures subtle limb muscle function has the potential to redefine clinical practice,” said Dr. Gosselin.

“The idea of sampling a patient’s ability to move about on a frequent basis, perhaps even daily, and to generate data profiles over time, certainly hold promise with respect to tracking disease evolution and responses to treatments on a scale not accessible before.”

A more immediate and comprehensive overview of a patient’s response to a treatment “could yield more rapid insights into the effectiveness of novel therapies tested in clinical trials,” said Dr. Gosselin. “This could have profound implications.”

Future digital devices may facilitate monitoring of patients in more remote communities, too, said Dr. Gosselin.

However, before these technologies can be introduced on a broad level, several outstanding issues will have to be addressed, the most important being the streams of data they generate, said Dr. Gosselin.

“This clearly has the potential to overwhelm neurologists in the assessment of their patients’ conditions,” he said. “Which information, and in which analyzed forms, truly provides meaningful insights into patients’ conditions will need to be identified, and this will take time.”

Privacy may be an issue, too, said Dr. Gosselin. Some patients may be less inclined to comply with a procedure “that can capture and record their life so extensively.”

And how health care insurance providers can interface with these comprehensive profiles of patients’ lives will also have to be considered, he said.

Dr. Graves has a provisional patent on the MSight device; has received research support from MMSS, Octave, Biogen EMD Serono, Novartis, ATARA Biotherapeutics, and ABM; has served on advisory boards for Bayer, Genentech, and TG therapeutic and a pediatric clinical trial steering committee for Novartis; and has consulted for Google. Dr. Gosselin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new wearable device detects, with a high degree of precision, various types of visual dysfunction, which eventually affects most patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The device uses advanced digital technology to stimulate the retina and the occipital cortex while also stimulating the eye tracking system, and reports out this data, one of its developers, Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of neuroimmunology research, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“In one paradigm of testing, we can get both sets of information,” which eliminates the complicated equipment set-up used by neuro-ophthalmologists, and makes eye assessments more readily available, she said.

“We can make this accessible for more clinicians and more patients, even eventually having it in an emergency setting or an outpatient clinic setting.”

Dr. Graves discussed this and other next-generation digital tools at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Currently, patients with MS can use accelerometers that determine overall activity level and devices that detect heart rate variability. They can also access mobile apps that track symptoms and medication adherence.
 

Limited sensitivity of current tools

However, current tools used to determine disability in MS are limited. The classification of MS subtypes is largely retrospective, and the preferred Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is problematic, said Dr. Graves.

For example, she said, the EDSS lacks sensitivity to short-term changes, depends on ambulation, and only poorly captures upper-extremity disability. “We know our patients are experiencing change and we know the tools we have now aren’t capturing that.”

She used the example of a pianist who can no longer play well with her right hand, but this can’t be detected with current tools. A device that uses technology from the gaming and computer control industry “can quantify that” change, said Dr. Graves.

She added that tools in development can detect not only motor and visual dysfunction but also cognitive dysfunction, potentially aiding clinical care and facilitating more rapid trials of disease modifying agents in MS. “Rather than having descriptive terms, these digital tools will help us quantitate change so we can take action.”

The new sensing devices use multiple sensors, including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and surface electrical signals in muscles to capture very precise temporal and textural information related to movement. Their development uses traditional signal processing as well as artificial intelligence approaches.

Dr. Graves’s device, the MSight, captures afferent and efferent visual function with a single mobile brain-computer interface.

At least 80% of patients with MS have some measurable dysfunction in the afferent system that oversees how light from the environment is turned into images in the brain, explained Dr. Graves. The efferent visual system that controls eye movements is also “profoundly impacted by MS” with, again, up to 80% of patients with MS experiencing related dysfunction, she said.

Her new visual system correlates with burden of MS disease, said Dr. Graves. “Having efferent and eye tracking problems correlates with overall disability and walking function.”

The information collected by this new device “tends to be really helpful even in people who don’t appear to be disabled with MS because it’s literally a window into the brain to let us see what’s happening,” said Dr. Graves.

She and her colleagues are testing the MSight device in clinical trials and have a provisional patent for it.
 

Finger and foot taps

Another device her team is developing detects minute changes over several months in finger and toe tap movements that are very difficult for the human eye to capture.

Dr. Graves reported on a cross sectional validation study of 17 patients with MS showing the foot and finger tap measures strongly correlated with the EDSS and patient-reported outcomes (P < .0001). A longitudinal analysis of 68 patients with MS found information on finger and foot taps distinguished those with progressive from those with relapsing MS.

“We found that in patients with progressive MS, the information in the signal we were capturing was changing, whereas someone with relapsing MS had a little bit of that but much less,” said Dr. Graves.

These and other novel, self-contained devices “will provide a set of neurological vital signs that we can put in the hands of clinicians and patients” with MS, as is currently being done in other specialties – for example, cardiology, said Dr. Graves.
 

Intriguing, exciting

In a comment, David Gosselin, PhD, associate professor, department of molecular medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, who cochaired the session featuring next-generation digital tools, said more sensitive monitoring technologies coming down the pipeline are “intriguing and exciting.”

While the devices are still in early development, “the eventual integration of such noninvasive technology that measures subtle limb muscle function has the potential to redefine clinical practice,” said Dr. Gosselin.

“The idea of sampling a patient’s ability to move about on a frequent basis, perhaps even daily, and to generate data profiles over time, certainly hold promise with respect to tracking disease evolution and responses to treatments on a scale not accessible before.”

A more immediate and comprehensive overview of a patient’s response to a treatment “could yield more rapid insights into the effectiveness of novel therapies tested in clinical trials,” said Dr. Gosselin. “This could have profound implications.”

Future digital devices may facilitate monitoring of patients in more remote communities, too, said Dr. Gosselin.

However, before these technologies can be introduced on a broad level, several outstanding issues will have to be addressed, the most important being the streams of data they generate, said Dr. Gosselin.

“This clearly has the potential to overwhelm neurologists in the assessment of their patients’ conditions,” he said. “Which information, and in which analyzed forms, truly provides meaningful insights into patients’ conditions will need to be identified, and this will take time.”

Privacy may be an issue, too, said Dr. Gosselin. Some patients may be less inclined to comply with a procedure “that can capture and record their life so extensively.”

And how health care insurance providers can interface with these comprehensive profiles of patients’ lives will also have to be considered, he said.

Dr. Graves has a provisional patent on the MSight device; has received research support from MMSS, Octave, Biogen EMD Serono, Novartis, ATARA Biotherapeutics, and ABM; has served on advisory boards for Bayer, Genentech, and TG therapeutic and a pediatric clinical trial steering committee for Novartis; and has consulted for Google. Dr. Gosselin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new wearable device detects, with a high degree of precision, various types of visual dysfunction, which eventually affects most patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The device uses advanced digital technology to stimulate the retina and the occipital cortex while also stimulating the eye tracking system, and reports out this data, one of its developers, Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of neuroimmunology research, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“In one paradigm of testing, we can get both sets of information,” which eliminates the complicated equipment set-up used by neuro-ophthalmologists, and makes eye assessments more readily available, she said.

“We can make this accessible for more clinicians and more patients, even eventually having it in an emergency setting or an outpatient clinic setting.”

Dr. Graves discussed this and other next-generation digital tools at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Currently, patients with MS can use accelerometers that determine overall activity level and devices that detect heart rate variability. They can also access mobile apps that track symptoms and medication adherence.
 

Limited sensitivity of current tools

However, current tools used to determine disability in MS are limited. The classification of MS subtypes is largely retrospective, and the preferred Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is problematic, said Dr. Graves.

For example, she said, the EDSS lacks sensitivity to short-term changes, depends on ambulation, and only poorly captures upper-extremity disability. “We know our patients are experiencing change and we know the tools we have now aren’t capturing that.”

She used the example of a pianist who can no longer play well with her right hand, but this can’t be detected with current tools. A device that uses technology from the gaming and computer control industry “can quantify that” change, said Dr. Graves.

She added that tools in development can detect not only motor and visual dysfunction but also cognitive dysfunction, potentially aiding clinical care and facilitating more rapid trials of disease modifying agents in MS. “Rather than having descriptive terms, these digital tools will help us quantitate change so we can take action.”

The new sensing devices use multiple sensors, including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and surface electrical signals in muscles to capture very precise temporal and textural information related to movement. Their development uses traditional signal processing as well as artificial intelligence approaches.

Dr. Graves’s device, the MSight, captures afferent and efferent visual function with a single mobile brain-computer interface.

At least 80% of patients with MS have some measurable dysfunction in the afferent system that oversees how light from the environment is turned into images in the brain, explained Dr. Graves. The efferent visual system that controls eye movements is also “profoundly impacted by MS” with, again, up to 80% of patients with MS experiencing related dysfunction, she said.

Her new visual system correlates with burden of MS disease, said Dr. Graves. “Having efferent and eye tracking problems correlates with overall disability and walking function.”

The information collected by this new device “tends to be really helpful even in people who don’t appear to be disabled with MS because it’s literally a window into the brain to let us see what’s happening,” said Dr. Graves.

She and her colleagues are testing the MSight device in clinical trials and have a provisional patent for it.
 

Finger and foot taps

Another device her team is developing detects minute changes over several months in finger and toe tap movements that are very difficult for the human eye to capture.

Dr. Graves reported on a cross sectional validation study of 17 patients with MS showing the foot and finger tap measures strongly correlated with the EDSS and patient-reported outcomes (P < .0001). A longitudinal analysis of 68 patients with MS found information on finger and foot taps distinguished those with progressive from those with relapsing MS.

“We found that in patients with progressive MS, the information in the signal we were capturing was changing, whereas someone with relapsing MS had a little bit of that but much less,” said Dr. Graves.

These and other novel, self-contained devices “will provide a set of neurological vital signs that we can put in the hands of clinicians and patients” with MS, as is currently being done in other specialties – for example, cardiology, said Dr. Graves.
 

Intriguing, exciting

In a comment, David Gosselin, PhD, associate professor, department of molecular medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, who cochaired the session featuring next-generation digital tools, said more sensitive monitoring technologies coming down the pipeline are “intriguing and exciting.”

While the devices are still in early development, “the eventual integration of such noninvasive technology that measures subtle limb muscle function has the potential to redefine clinical practice,” said Dr. Gosselin.

“The idea of sampling a patient’s ability to move about on a frequent basis, perhaps even daily, and to generate data profiles over time, certainly hold promise with respect to tracking disease evolution and responses to treatments on a scale not accessible before.”

A more immediate and comprehensive overview of a patient’s response to a treatment “could yield more rapid insights into the effectiveness of novel therapies tested in clinical trials,” said Dr. Gosselin. “This could have profound implications.”

Future digital devices may facilitate monitoring of patients in more remote communities, too, said Dr. Gosselin.

However, before these technologies can be introduced on a broad level, several outstanding issues will have to be addressed, the most important being the streams of data they generate, said Dr. Gosselin.

“This clearly has the potential to overwhelm neurologists in the assessment of their patients’ conditions,” he said. “Which information, and in which analyzed forms, truly provides meaningful insights into patients’ conditions will need to be identified, and this will take time.”

Privacy may be an issue, too, said Dr. Gosselin. Some patients may be less inclined to comply with a procedure “that can capture and record their life so extensively.”

And how health care insurance providers can interface with these comprehensive profiles of patients’ lives will also have to be considered, he said.

Dr. Graves has a provisional patent on the MSight device; has received research support from MMSS, Octave, Biogen EMD Serono, Novartis, ATARA Biotherapeutics, and ABM; has served on advisory boards for Bayer, Genentech, and TG therapeutic and a pediatric clinical trial steering committee for Novartis; and has consulted for Google. Dr. Gosselin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.

Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge Cardiology

The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.

The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.

“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.

Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.

For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).

More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.

In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).

Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.

Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.

The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.

“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”

Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.

Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.

Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.

Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge Cardiology

The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.

The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.

“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.

Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.

For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).

More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.

In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).

Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.

Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.

The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.

“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”

Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.

Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.

Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.

Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge Cardiology

The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.

The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.

“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.

Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.

For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).

More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.

In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).

Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.

Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.

The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.

“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”

Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.

Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.

Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) health advisory notifying clinicians and public health officials of a confirmed measles case in an individual who for 2 days (February 17-18) attended a large religious gathering that was attended by an estimated 20,000 people at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky.

Given that large numbers of people might have been exposed to the attendee (who was not vaccinated) and that the individual had a history of recent international travel, the CDC has encouraged clinicians to be vigilant for patients presenting with symptoms that meet the measles case definition. A steady increase in measles cases from 49 in 2021 to 121 in 2022 in children who were not fully vaccinated – coupled with outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota – underscores the potential gravity of the CDC advisory as well as the need to mitigate the risk of ongoing or secondary transmission.

Currently, little is known about the individual who contracted measles other than the fact that he is a resident of Jessamine County, Ky., according to a news release issued by the Kentucky Department of Public Health. It is the third confirmed case in Kentucky over the past 3 months. State and national health officials are concerned that the individual might have transmitted measles to attendees visiting from other states.

David Sugerman, MD, MPH, a medical officer in CDC’s division of viral diseases and lead for the measles, rubella, and cytomegalovirus team, noted that the timing of the alert coincides with the period in which persons who had had contact with the initial case patient might be expected to develop symptoms.

For clinicians, “It’s really about considering measles in any un- or undervaccinated patient that arrives at a clinic and recently traveled internationally,” Dr. Sugerman told this news organization. He explained that “when doctors are seeing patients, they’re not going to necessarily share that information off the bat when they present with fever or rash, or if their child has fever and rash, or that they traveled internationally. So, eliciting that history from the patient or their parents is really critical.”

The CDC recommends that measles be considered in anyone presenting with a febrile illness and symptoms that are clinically compatible with measles (that is, rash, cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis), as well as in patients who have recently traveled abroad, especially to countries with ongoing outbreaks, including India, Somalia, and Yemen.

“In general, if they’ve traveled internationally and they are undervaccinated, measles should be part of the differential diagnosis,” Sugerman said. He also emphasized the need to follow airborne isolation precautions in addition to general infection control measures.

Immediate triage is critical, especially since overcrowded waiting rooms might be filled with patients who are not yet eligible for vaccination or are not up to date or fully vaccinated.

“Measles is under airborne isolation criteria and precautions, and therefore, [patients] need to be placed as soon as possible into a negative pressure or airborne infection isolation room – and that should be a single room,” he explained. He noted, “In some settings, there may not be a negative pressure room, e.g., an outpatient pediatrics or family medicine office.”

Dr. Sugerman said that in these circumstances, patients should be placed in a room with masked health care providers who have received two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and that they should wear an N95 mask when entering the room and interviewing the patient.

Clinicians should follow CDC’s testing recommendations and collect a nasopharyngeal or throat swab or a urine specimen for PCR testing and a blood specimen for serology. In addition, they should immediately report cases to local and state public health authorities.

For all patients, it’s critical to be up to date on MMR vaccines, especially persons who are going to be traveling internationally. “We recommend that when they’ve got infants traveling with them who are 6-11 months of age, that they get a first dose (which we consider a zero dose), because they need a routine dose at 12-15 months, and then 4-6 years,” said Dr. Sugerman. He said that it’s safe for adults who are unsure of their status to receive an MMR dose as well.

Dr. Sugerman stressed that despite major strides, “we just don’t have enough coverage in all individuals in this country. Because people are traveling as often as they are, it can be imported. Until measles is eliminated globally, there’s going to be an ongoing risk of importation and potential spread amongst others in their household or community, especially amongst individuals who are not fully vaccinated and, in particular, amongst those who are unvaccinated,” he said.

Dr. Sugerman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) health advisory notifying clinicians and public health officials of a confirmed measles case in an individual who for 2 days (February 17-18) attended a large religious gathering that was attended by an estimated 20,000 people at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky.

Given that large numbers of people might have been exposed to the attendee (who was not vaccinated) and that the individual had a history of recent international travel, the CDC has encouraged clinicians to be vigilant for patients presenting with symptoms that meet the measles case definition. A steady increase in measles cases from 49 in 2021 to 121 in 2022 in children who were not fully vaccinated – coupled with outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota – underscores the potential gravity of the CDC advisory as well as the need to mitigate the risk of ongoing or secondary transmission.

Currently, little is known about the individual who contracted measles other than the fact that he is a resident of Jessamine County, Ky., according to a news release issued by the Kentucky Department of Public Health. It is the third confirmed case in Kentucky over the past 3 months. State and national health officials are concerned that the individual might have transmitted measles to attendees visiting from other states.

David Sugerman, MD, MPH, a medical officer in CDC’s division of viral diseases and lead for the measles, rubella, and cytomegalovirus team, noted that the timing of the alert coincides with the period in which persons who had had contact with the initial case patient might be expected to develop symptoms.

For clinicians, “It’s really about considering measles in any un- or undervaccinated patient that arrives at a clinic and recently traveled internationally,” Dr. Sugerman told this news organization. He explained that “when doctors are seeing patients, they’re not going to necessarily share that information off the bat when they present with fever or rash, or if their child has fever and rash, or that they traveled internationally. So, eliciting that history from the patient or their parents is really critical.”

The CDC recommends that measles be considered in anyone presenting with a febrile illness and symptoms that are clinically compatible with measles (that is, rash, cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis), as well as in patients who have recently traveled abroad, especially to countries with ongoing outbreaks, including India, Somalia, and Yemen.

“In general, if they’ve traveled internationally and they are undervaccinated, measles should be part of the differential diagnosis,” Sugerman said. He also emphasized the need to follow airborne isolation precautions in addition to general infection control measures.

Immediate triage is critical, especially since overcrowded waiting rooms might be filled with patients who are not yet eligible for vaccination or are not up to date or fully vaccinated.

“Measles is under airborne isolation criteria and precautions, and therefore, [patients] need to be placed as soon as possible into a negative pressure or airborne infection isolation room – and that should be a single room,” he explained. He noted, “In some settings, there may not be a negative pressure room, e.g., an outpatient pediatrics or family medicine office.”

Dr. Sugerman said that in these circumstances, patients should be placed in a room with masked health care providers who have received two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and that they should wear an N95 mask when entering the room and interviewing the patient.

Clinicians should follow CDC’s testing recommendations and collect a nasopharyngeal or throat swab or a urine specimen for PCR testing and a blood specimen for serology. In addition, they should immediately report cases to local and state public health authorities.

For all patients, it’s critical to be up to date on MMR vaccines, especially persons who are going to be traveling internationally. “We recommend that when they’ve got infants traveling with them who are 6-11 months of age, that they get a first dose (which we consider a zero dose), because they need a routine dose at 12-15 months, and then 4-6 years,” said Dr. Sugerman. He said that it’s safe for adults who are unsure of their status to receive an MMR dose as well.

Dr. Sugerman stressed that despite major strides, “we just don’t have enough coverage in all individuals in this country. Because people are traveling as often as they are, it can be imported. Until measles is eliminated globally, there’s going to be an ongoing risk of importation and potential spread amongst others in their household or community, especially amongst individuals who are not fully vaccinated and, in particular, amongst those who are unvaccinated,” he said.

Dr. Sugerman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) health advisory notifying clinicians and public health officials of a confirmed measles case in an individual who for 2 days (February 17-18) attended a large religious gathering that was attended by an estimated 20,000 people at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky.

Given that large numbers of people might have been exposed to the attendee (who was not vaccinated) and that the individual had a history of recent international travel, the CDC has encouraged clinicians to be vigilant for patients presenting with symptoms that meet the measles case definition. A steady increase in measles cases from 49 in 2021 to 121 in 2022 in children who were not fully vaccinated – coupled with outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota – underscores the potential gravity of the CDC advisory as well as the need to mitigate the risk of ongoing or secondary transmission.

Currently, little is known about the individual who contracted measles other than the fact that he is a resident of Jessamine County, Ky., according to a news release issued by the Kentucky Department of Public Health. It is the third confirmed case in Kentucky over the past 3 months. State and national health officials are concerned that the individual might have transmitted measles to attendees visiting from other states.

David Sugerman, MD, MPH, a medical officer in CDC’s division of viral diseases and lead for the measles, rubella, and cytomegalovirus team, noted that the timing of the alert coincides with the period in which persons who had had contact with the initial case patient might be expected to develop symptoms.

For clinicians, “It’s really about considering measles in any un- or undervaccinated patient that arrives at a clinic and recently traveled internationally,” Dr. Sugerman told this news organization. He explained that “when doctors are seeing patients, they’re not going to necessarily share that information off the bat when they present with fever or rash, or if their child has fever and rash, or that they traveled internationally. So, eliciting that history from the patient or their parents is really critical.”

The CDC recommends that measles be considered in anyone presenting with a febrile illness and symptoms that are clinically compatible with measles (that is, rash, cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis), as well as in patients who have recently traveled abroad, especially to countries with ongoing outbreaks, including India, Somalia, and Yemen.

“In general, if they’ve traveled internationally and they are undervaccinated, measles should be part of the differential diagnosis,” Sugerman said. He also emphasized the need to follow airborne isolation precautions in addition to general infection control measures.

Immediate triage is critical, especially since overcrowded waiting rooms might be filled with patients who are not yet eligible for vaccination or are not up to date or fully vaccinated.

“Measles is under airborne isolation criteria and precautions, and therefore, [patients] need to be placed as soon as possible into a negative pressure or airborne infection isolation room – and that should be a single room,” he explained. He noted, “In some settings, there may not be a negative pressure room, e.g., an outpatient pediatrics or family medicine office.”

Dr. Sugerman said that in these circumstances, patients should be placed in a room with masked health care providers who have received two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and that they should wear an N95 mask when entering the room and interviewing the patient.

Clinicians should follow CDC’s testing recommendations and collect a nasopharyngeal or throat swab or a urine specimen for PCR testing and a blood specimen for serology. In addition, they should immediately report cases to local and state public health authorities.

For all patients, it’s critical to be up to date on MMR vaccines, especially persons who are going to be traveling internationally. “We recommend that when they’ve got infants traveling with them who are 6-11 months of age, that they get a first dose (which we consider a zero dose), because they need a routine dose at 12-15 months, and then 4-6 years,” said Dr. Sugerman. He said that it’s safe for adults who are unsure of their status to receive an MMR dose as well.

Dr. Sugerman stressed that despite major strides, “we just don’t have enough coverage in all individuals in this country. Because people are traveling as often as they are, it can be imported. Until measles is eliminated globally, there’s going to be an ongoing risk of importation and potential spread amongst others in their household or community, especially amongst individuals who are not fully vaccinated and, in particular, amongst those who are unvaccinated,” he said.

Dr. Sugerman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for dupilumab for a new indication: The treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in adolescents and adults aged 12 years and older that is inadequately controlled by current standard of care.

CSU is an inflammatory skin condition that causes sudden hives and angioedema, most often on the face, hands, and feet. However, the throat and upper airways also can be affected. CSU is generally treated with H1 antihistamines, but this strategy is insufficient for approximately 50% of patients, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Regeneron, announcing the FDA acceptance of the application on March 7.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), first approved in 2017 for treating atopic dermatitis in adults, is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of the interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 pathways.

The application for FDA approval for CSU is based on data from a pair of phase 3 trials in two different populations, LIBERTY-CUPID A and B.

The first study (LIBERTY-CUPID A) randomized 138 CSU patients aged 6 years and older who were uncontrolled on antihistamines to additional treatment with dupilumab or placebo over 24 weeks. The dupilumab-treated patients showed a 63% reduction in itch severity compared with a 35% reduction in patients who received the placebo, measured by changes in a 0-21 itch severity scale, according to data presented at the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) meeting.

Patients in the dupilumab group also showed a 65% reduction in the severity of urticaria activity (itch and hives) compared with 37% of those on placebo. Overall rates of adverse events were similar between groups; the most common were injection site reactions, according to the company.

The second study (LIBERTY-CUPID B) assessed efficacy and safety of dupilumab in 108 patients with CSU aged 12-80 years who were symptomatic despite standard-of-care treatment and were intolerant or incomplete responders to the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab (Xolair), approved for CSU. Last year, the company announced that this study had been halted after an interim analysis found that while there were positive numerical trends in reducing itch and hives, they “did not meet statistical significance.” In the March 7 press release, the company said that results from this study provide “additional supporting data” for the approval application.

The target date for the FDA’s decision is Oct. 22, 2023, according to Regeneron. Regeneron and Sanofi also are investigating dupilumab for treating chronic inducible urticaria triggered by cold in a phase 3 study.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for dupilumab for a new indication: The treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in adolescents and adults aged 12 years and older that is inadequately controlled by current standard of care.

CSU is an inflammatory skin condition that causes sudden hives and angioedema, most often on the face, hands, and feet. However, the throat and upper airways also can be affected. CSU is generally treated with H1 antihistamines, but this strategy is insufficient for approximately 50% of patients, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Regeneron, announcing the FDA acceptance of the application on March 7.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), first approved in 2017 for treating atopic dermatitis in adults, is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of the interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 pathways.

The application for FDA approval for CSU is based on data from a pair of phase 3 trials in two different populations, LIBERTY-CUPID A and B.

The first study (LIBERTY-CUPID A) randomized 138 CSU patients aged 6 years and older who were uncontrolled on antihistamines to additional treatment with dupilumab or placebo over 24 weeks. The dupilumab-treated patients showed a 63% reduction in itch severity compared with a 35% reduction in patients who received the placebo, measured by changes in a 0-21 itch severity scale, according to data presented at the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) meeting.

Patients in the dupilumab group also showed a 65% reduction in the severity of urticaria activity (itch and hives) compared with 37% of those on placebo. Overall rates of adverse events were similar between groups; the most common were injection site reactions, according to the company.

The second study (LIBERTY-CUPID B) assessed efficacy and safety of dupilumab in 108 patients with CSU aged 12-80 years who were symptomatic despite standard-of-care treatment and were intolerant or incomplete responders to the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab (Xolair), approved for CSU. Last year, the company announced that this study had been halted after an interim analysis found that while there were positive numerical trends in reducing itch and hives, they “did not meet statistical significance.” In the March 7 press release, the company said that results from this study provide “additional supporting data” for the approval application.

The target date for the FDA’s decision is Oct. 22, 2023, according to Regeneron. Regeneron and Sanofi also are investigating dupilumab for treating chronic inducible urticaria triggered by cold in a phase 3 study.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for dupilumab for a new indication: The treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in adolescents and adults aged 12 years and older that is inadequately controlled by current standard of care.

CSU is an inflammatory skin condition that causes sudden hives and angioedema, most often on the face, hands, and feet. However, the throat and upper airways also can be affected. CSU is generally treated with H1 antihistamines, but this strategy is insufficient for approximately 50% of patients, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Regeneron, announcing the FDA acceptance of the application on March 7.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), first approved in 2017 for treating atopic dermatitis in adults, is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of the interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 pathways.

The application for FDA approval for CSU is based on data from a pair of phase 3 trials in two different populations, LIBERTY-CUPID A and B.

The first study (LIBERTY-CUPID A) randomized 138 CSU patients aged 6 years and older who were uncontrolled on antihistamines to additional treatment with dupilumab or placebo over 24 weeks. The dupilumab-treated patients showed a 63% reduction in itch severity compared with a 35% reduction in patients who received the placebo, measured by changes in a 0-21 itch severity scale, according to data presented at the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) meeting.

Patients in the dupilumab group also showed a 65% reduction in the severity of urticaria activity (itch and hives) compared with 37% of those on placebo. Overall rates of adverse events were similar between groups; the most common were injection site reactions, according to the company.

The second study (LIBERTY-CUPID B) assessed efficacy and safety of dupilumab in 108 patients with CSU aged 12-80 years who were symptomatic despite standard-of-care treatment and were intolerant or incomplete responders to the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab (Xolair), approved for CSU. Last year, the company announced that this study had been halted after an interim analysis found that while there were positive numerical trends in reducing itch and hives, they “did not meet statistical significance.” In the March 7 press release, the company said that results from this study provide “additional supporting data” for the approval application.

The target date for the FDA’s decision is Oct. 22, 2023, according to Regeneron. Regeneron and Sanofi also are investigating dupilumab for treating chronic inducible urticaria triggered by cold in a phase 3 study.

More than 1 in 4 parents lied to school officials about their children’s COVID-19 status or refused to comply with public health rules during the height of the pandemic, a new study found. Researchers said they suspected the 26% of parents who misrepresented their children’s health status may have undercounted the actual figure.

“If anything, 26% is probably the minimum” of parents who misled school officials, said Angela Fagerlin, PhD, a researcher at the University of Utah Medical School, Salt Lake City.

In the survey, many parents said they considered it their right as parents to make their own decision about their children’s health status, said Dr. Fagerlin, who is also the chair of the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

“It appears that many parents were concerned about their children missing school,” she said. “At the same time, they’re potentially exposing other kids to a serious illness.”

In the survey, parents were asked whether they lied or misrepresented information about their children on seven different COVID-19 topics, including illness and vaccination status and if they followed quarantine protocols. Researchers tallied survey responses collected in December 2021 from 580 parents, whose average age was 36 and of whom 70% were women. Results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Overall, 24% of parents said they lied to people that their children were with while knowing or suspecting the children had COVID. About half of parents cited at least one of the following reasons for doing so: parental freedom, child did not feel very sick, or wanted the child’s life to feel “normal.”

About 20% of parents said they avoided testing when they thought their child had COVID, and parents also reported allowing children to break quarantine rules at a similar rate. More than half of parents who avoided testing said they were worried testing would hurt or feel uncomfortable.

About 4 in 10 parents who lied about their child’s illness status or who lied about whether their child should be in quarantine said they did so because of guidance from a public figure such as a celebrity or politician. At least 3 in 10 said they lied because they could not miss work to stay home with their child.

“We need to do a better job of providing support mechanisms like paid sick leave for family illness so that parents don’t feel like their only option is to engage in misrepresentation or non-adherence to public health guidelines during a future infectious disease outbreak that matches or exceeds the magnitude of COVID-19,” says researcher Andrea Gurmankin Levy, PhD, of Middlesex (Conn.) Community College.

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

More than 1 in 4 parents lied to school officials about their children’s COVID-19 status or refused to comply with public health rules during the height of the pandemic, a new study found. Researchers said they suspected the 26% of parents who misrepresented their children’s health status may have undercounted the actual figure.

“If anything, 26% is probably the minimum” of parents who misled school officials, said Angela Fagerlin, PhD, a researcher at the University of Utah Medical School, Salt Lake City.

In the survey, many parents said they considered it their right as parents to make their own decision about their children’s health status, said Dr. Fagerlin, who is also the chair of the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

“It appears that many parents were concerned about their children missing school,” she said. “At the same time, they’re potentially exposing other kids to a serious illness.”

In the survey, parents were asked whether they lied or misrepresented information about their children on seven different COVID-19 topics, including illness and vaccination status and if they followed quarantine protocols. Researchers tallied survey responses collected in December 2021 from 580 parents, whose average age was 36 and of whom 70% were women. Results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Overall, 24% of parents said they lied to people that their children were with while knowing or suspecting the children had COVID. About half of parents cited at least one of the following reasons for doing so: parental freedom, child did not feel very sick, or wanted the child’s life to feel “normal.”

About 20% of parents said they avoided testing when they thought their child had COVID, and parents also reported allowing children to break quarantine rules at a similar rate. More than half of parents who avoided testing said they were worried testing would hurt or feel uncomfortable.

About 4 in 10 parents who lied about their child’s illness status or who lied about whether their child should be in quarantine said they did so because of guidance from a public figure such as a celebrity or politician. At least 3 in 10 said they lied because they could not miss work to stay home with their child.

“We need to do a better job of providing support mechanisms like paid sick leave for family illness so that parents don’t feel like their only option is to engage in misrepresentation or non-adherence to public health guidelines during a future infectious disease outbreak that matches or exceeds the magnitude of COVID-19,” says researcher Andrea Gurmankin Levy, PhD, of Middlesex (Conn.) Community College.

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

More than 1 in 4 parents lied to school officials about their children’s COVID-19 status or refused to comply with public health rules during the height of the pandemic, a new study found. Researchers said they suspected the 26% of parents who misrepresented their children’s health status may have undercounted the actual figure.

“If anything, 26% is probably the minimum” of parents who misled school officials, said Angela Fagerlin, PhD, a researcher at the University of Utah Medical School, Salt Lake City.

In the survey, many parents said they considered it their right as parents to make their own decision about their children’s health status, said Dr. Fagerlin, who is also the chair of the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

“It appears that many parents were concerned about their children missing school,” she said. “At the same time, they’re potentially exposing other kids to a serious illness.”

In the survey, parents were asked whether they lied or misrepresented information about their children on seven different COVID-19 topics, including illness and vaccination status and if they followed quarantine protocols. Researchers tallied survey responses collected in December 2021 from 580 parents, whose average age was 36 and of whom 70% were women. Results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Overall, 24% of parents said they lied to people that their children were with while knowing or suspecting the children had COVID. About half of parents cited at least one of the following reasons for doing so: parental freedom, child did not feel very sick, or wanted the child’s life to feel “normal.”

About 20% of parents said they avoided testing when they thought their child had COVID, and parents also reported allowing children to break quarantine rules at a similar rate. More than half of parents who avoided testing said they were worried testing would hurt or feel uncomfortable.

About 4 in 10 parents who lied about their child’s illness status or who lied about whether their child should be in quarantine said they did so because of guidance from a public figure such as a celebrity or politician. At least 3 in 10 said they lied because they could not miss work to stay home with their child.

“We need to do a better job of providing support mechanisms like paid sick leave for family illness so that parents don’t feel like their only option is to engage in misrepresentation or non-adherence to public health guidelines during a future infectious disease outbreak that matches or exceeds the magnitude of COVID-19,” says researcher Andrea Gurmankin Levy, PhD, of Middlesex (Conn.) Community College.

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

SAN DIEGO – Clinical characteristics and treatment responses in multiple sclerosis (MS) show unimodal distributions, which suggests that it is a homogeneous condition with lots of variation, rather than a mixture of conditions with different genetic or other causes, according to a new analysis. The work suggests that personalized therapy based on clinical characteristics is likely to be the best approach, rather than precision medicine based on molecular or other subtypes.

Think MS is heterogeneous? Think again

The work drew upon data from 22,000 individuals, 32,000 attacks, 156,000 EDSS scores, 250,000 observation years, and 110,000 treatment years recorded in the Swedish MS registry. The researchers examined distributions in age of onset, severity, and distribution of relapses. Among patients treated with one of 12 disease-modifying therapies, they examined patterns of EDSS progression, appearance of new lesions, and relapses.

“

Karolinska Institutet

Regardless of which clinical characteristic of the MS syndrome that I study, I find a uniform distribution with very few if any outliers. That argues that MS is likely to be a homogeneous condition with some variation, but it’s highly unlikely that MS is a mixture of different conditions masquerading as the same thing,” said Jan Hillert, MD, PhD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“There are big efforts out there trying to decipher the molecular basis of the MS syndrome, thinking that it’s a mixture of different things. And I would argue that our data very strongly argue against that,” said Dr. Hillert, who is a professor of neurology at Karolinska Institutet in Solna, Sweden.

Specific subtypes should produce individual groupings rather than a broad distribution. “If you have a multitude of factors, then this (finding of a broad distribution) is what you have. If you have a small number of strongly acting factors, like if there were genetic subgroups, then you would have a different distribution. So this is in line with the polygenic, complex nature of MS that we have been thinking about for many, many years, and which the genetics also support,” said Dr. Hillert.

The findings suggest that physicians should be emphasizing personalized treatment of MS based on factors like age, weight, disease activity and severity, disability, side effects, and other factors. “Personalized medicine I embrace, but the concept of precision medicine is naive. It’s not founded on any sound scientific evidence,” said Dr. Hillert.
 

An evolving definition

The conclusion is compelling, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “I have not seen this sort of analysis before. I think it doesn’t absolutely prove the case in talking about very small numbers, but it does make a very logical argument. This is not showing any meaningful large subgroups that you can call out,” said Dr. Coyle, who is a professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stonybrook Neurosciences Institute in New York.

“I think that it’s interesting, because we have routinely said we think this is heterogeneous, because no two patients are alike. But this is speaking against meaningful heterogeneity in MS. When you look at these sorts of statistical results, this is what you’d expect in a normal population, not in a disease where you might say, genetically, or molecularly, you could define significant subsets of individuals,” said Dr. Coyle.

The study isn’t the last word. “You would probably like to see some follow-up data, perhaps in other very large databases to make it more convincing, but I think you’re not hearing as many people talk about MS heterogeneity anymore. We know there’s a focal inflammatory component, we know there’s a neurodegenerative component. Both are present in all MS. People are even arguing that maybe it’s not meaningful to call out progressive and relapsing MS. I don’t agree with that, but I think the concept that there are meaningful subsets of patients is probably incorrect. [The idea that] one set is due to perhaps an infection, another might be molecular mimicry. ... Maybe that’s not the case at all,” said Dr. Coyle.

For example, some companies are looking into whether B cell depletion treatments might be more effective for one set of patients versus another. “The issue is, can you dissect out subsets where hitting B cells is really good and others where it doesn’t seem to matter? That really hasn’t [been successful],” said Dr. Coyle.

Dr. Hillert has served on scientific advisor boards for or received speaker’s fees from Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Teva, Merck KGaA, Sandoz, and Sanofi Genzyme. He has received research support from Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Coyle has consulted for or received speaker fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, LabCorp, Eli Lilly and Company, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics. She has received research support from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MedDay, NINDS, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.
 

SAN DIEGO – Clinical characteristics and treatment responses in multiple sclerosis (MS) show unimodal distributions, which suggests that it is a homogeneous condition with lots of variation, rather than a mixture of conditions with different genetic or other causes, according to a new analysis. The work suggests that personalized therapy based on clinical characteristics is likely to be the best approach, rather than precision medicine based on molecular or other subtypes.

Think MS is heterogeneous? Think again

The work drew upon data from 22,000 individuals, 32,000 attacks, 156,000 EDSS scores, 250,000 observation years, and 110,000 treatment years recorded in the Swedish MS registry. The researchers examined distributions in age of onset, severity, and distribution of relapses. Among patients treated with one of 12 disease-modifying therapies, they examined patterns of EDSS progression, appearance of new lesions, and relapses.

“

Karolinska Institutet

Regardless of which clinical characteristic of the MS syndrome that I study, I find a uniform distribution with very few if any outliers. That argues that MS is likely to be a homogeneous condition with some variation, but it’s highly unlikely that MS is a mixture of different conditions masquerading as the same thing,” said Jan Hillert, MD, PhD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“There are big efforts out there trying to decipher the molecular basis of the MS syndrome, thinking that it’s a mixture of different things. And I would argue that our data very strongly argue against that,” said Dr. Hillert, who is a professor of neurology at Karolinska Institutet in Solna, Sweden.

Specific subtypes should produce individual groupings rather than a broad distribution. “If you have a multitude of factors, then this (finding of a broad distribution) is what you have. If you have a small number of strongly acting factors, like if there were genetic subgroups, then you would have a different distribution. So this is in line with the polygenic, complex nature of MS that we have been thinking about for many, many years, and which the genetics also support,” said Dr. Hillert.

The findings suggest that physicians should be emphasizing personalized treatment of MS based on factors like age, weight, disease activity and severity, disability, side effects, and other factors. “Personalized medicine I embrace, but the concept of precision medicine is naive. It’s not founded on any sound scientific evidence,” said Dr. Hillert.
 

An evolving definition

The conclusion is compelling, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “I have not seen this sort of analysis before. I think it doesn’t absolutely prove the case in talking about very small numbers, but it does make a very logical argument. This is not showing any meaningful large subgroups that you can call out,” said Dr. Coyle, who is a professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stonybrook Neurosciences Institute in New York.

“I think that it’s interesting, because we have routinely said we think this is heterogeneous, because no two patients are alike. But this is speaking against meaningful heterogeneity in MS. When you look at these sorts of statistical results, this is what you’d expect in a normal population, not in a disease where you might say, genetically, or molecularly, you could define significant subsets of individuals,” said Dr. Coyle.

The study isn’t the last word. “You would probably like to see some follow-up data, perhaps in other very large databases to make it more convincing, but I think you’re not hearing as many people talk about MS heterogeneity anymore. We know there’s a focal inflammatory component, we know there’s a neurodegenerative component. Both are present in all MS. People are even arguing that maybe it’s not meaningful to call out progressive and relapsing MS. I don’t agree with that, but I think the concept that there are meaningful subsets of patients is probably incorrect. [The idea that] one set is due to perhaps an infection, another might be molecular mimicry. ... Maybe that’s not the case at all,” said Dr. Coyle.

For example, some companies are looking into whether B cell depletion treatments might be more effective for one set of patients versus another. “The issue is, can you dissect out subsets where hitting B cells is really good and others where it doesn’t seem to matter? That really hasn’t [been successful],” said Dr. Coyle.

Dr. Hillert has served on scientific advisor boards for or received speaker’s fees from Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Teva, Merck KGaA, Sandoz, and Sanofi Genzyme. He has received research support from Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Coyle has consulted for or received speaker fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, LabCorp, Eli Lilly and Company, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics. She has received research support from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MedDay, NINDS, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.
 

SAN DIEGO – Clinical characteristics and treatment responses in multiple sclerosis (MS) show unimodal distributions, which suggests that it is a homogeneous condition with lots of variation, rather than a mixture of conditions with different genetic or other causes, according to a new analysis. The work suggests that personalized therapy based on clinical characteristics is likely to be the best approach, rather than precision medicine based on molecular or other subtypes.

Think MS is heterogeneous? Think again

The work drew upon data from 22,000 individuals, 32,000 attacks, 156,000 EDSS scores, 250,000 observation years, and 110,000 treatment years recorded in the Swedish MS registry. The researchers examined distributions in age of onset, severity, and distribution of relapses. Among patients treated with one of 12 disease-modifying therapies, they examined patterns of EDSS progression, appearance of new lesions, and relapses.

“

Karolinska Institutet

Regardless of which clinical characteristic of the MS syndrome that I study, I find a uniform distribution with very few if any outliers. That argues that MS is likely to be a homogeneous condition with some variation, but it’s highly unlikely that MS is a mixture of different conditions masquerading as the same thing,” said Jan Hillert, MD, PhD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“There are big efforts out there trying to decipher the molecular basis of the MS syndrome, thinking that it’s a mixture of different things. And I would argue that our data very strongly argue against that,” said Dr. Hillert, who is a professor of neurology at Karolinska Institutet in Solna, Sweden.

Specific subtypes should produce individual groupings rather than a broad distribution. “If you have a multitude of factors, then this (finding of a broad distribution) is what you have. If you have a small number of strongly acting factors, like if there were genetic subgroups, then you would have a different distribution. So this is in line with the polygenic, complex nature of MS that we have been thinking about for many, many years, and which the genetics also support,” said Dr. Hillert.

The findings suggest that physicians should be emphasizing personalized treatment of MS based on factors like age, weight, disease activity and severity, disability, side effects, and other factors. “Personalized medicine I embrace, but the concept of precision medicine is naive. It’s not founded on any sound scientific evidence,” said Dr. Hillert.
 

An evolving definition

The conclusion is compelling, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “I have not seen this sort of analysis before. I think it doesn’t absolutely prove the case in talking about very small numbers, but it does make a very logical argument. This is not showing any meaningful large subgroups that you can call out,” said Dr. Coyle, who is a professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stonybrook Neurosciences Institute in New York.

“I think that it’s interesting, because we have routinely said we think this is heterogeneous, because no two patients are alike. But this is speaking against meaningful heterogeneity in MS. When you look at these sorts of statistical results, this is what you’d expect in a normal population, not in a disease where you might say, genetically, or molecularly, you could define significant subsets of individuals,” said Dr. Coyle.

The study isn’t the last word. “You would probably like to see some follow-up data, perhaps in other very large databases to make it more convincing, but I think you’re not hearing as many people talk about MS heterogeneity anymore. We know there’s a focal inflammatory component, we know there’s a neurodegenerative component. Both are present in all MS. People are even arguing that maybe it’s not meaningful to call out progressive and relapsing MS. I don’t agree with that, but I think the concept that there are meaningful subsets of patients is probably incorrect. [The idea that] one set is due to perhaps an infection, another might be molecular mimicry. ... Maybe that’s not the case at all,” said Dr. Coyle.

For example, some companies are looking into whether B cell depletion treatments might be more effective for one set of patients versus another. “The issue is, can you dissect out subsets where hitting B cells is really good and others where it doesn’t seem to matter? That really hasn’t [been successful],” said Dr. Coyle.

Dr. Hillert has served on scientific advisor boards for or received speaker’s fees from Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Teva, Merck KGaA, Sandoz, and Sanofi Genzyme. He has received research support from Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Coyle has consulted for or received speaker fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, LabCorp, Eli Lilly and Company, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics. She has received research support from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MedDay, NINDS, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.
 

Black people with dementia are less likely than their White peers to receive cognitive enhancers and other medications for dementia in the outpatient setting, preliminary data from a retrospective study show.

“There have been disparities regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medications in the treatment of dementia described in the literature, and disparities in the use of adjunctive treatments for other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia described in hospital and nursing home settings,” said study investigator Alice Hawkins, MD, with the department of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “However, less is known about use of dementia medications that people take at home. Our study found disparities in this area as well,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

More research needed

The researchers analyzed data on 3,655 Black and 12,885 White patients with a diagnosis of dementia who were seen at Mount Sinai. They evaluated utilization of five medication classes:

• cholinesterase inhibitors.
• N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists.
• selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
• antipsychotics.
• benzodiazepines.

They found that Black patients with dementia received cognitive enhancers less often than White patients with dementia (20% vs. 30% for cholinesterase inhibitors; 10% vs. 17% for NMDA antagonists).

Black patients with dementia were also less likely to receive medications for behavioral and psychological symptom management, compared with White peers (24% vs. 40% for SSRIs; 18% vs. 22% for antipsychotics; and 18% vs. 37% for benzodiazepines).

These disparities remained even after controlling for factors such as demographics and insurance coverage.

“Larger systemic forces such as systemic racism, quality of care, and provider bias are harder to pin down, particularly in the medical record, though they all may be playing a role in perpetuating these inequities. More research will be needed to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to these disparities,” said Dr. Hawkins.

The researchers found Black patients who were referred to a neurologist received cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA antagonists at rates comparable with White patients. “Therefore, referrals to specialists such as neurologists may decrease the disparities for these prescriptions,” Dr. Hawkins said.
 

Crucial research

Commenting on the findings, Carl V. Hill, PhD, MPH, Alzheimer’s Association chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, said the study “adds to previous research that points to inequities in the administering of medications for dementia symptoms, and highlights the inequities we know exist in dementia care.”

“Cognitive enhancers and other behavioral/psychological management drugs, while they don’t stop, slow, or cure dementia, can offer relief for some of the challenging symptoms associated with diseases caused by dementia. If people aren’t being appropriately prescribed medications that may offer symptom relief from this challenging disease, it could lead to poorer health outcomes,” said Dr. Hill.

“These data underscore the importance of health disparities research that is crucial in uncovering inequities in dementia treatment, care, and research for Black individuals, as well as all underrepresented populations.

“We must create a society in which the underserved, disproportionately affected, and underrepresented are safe, cared for, and valued. This can be done through enhancing cultural competence in health care settings, improving representation within the health care system, and engaging and building trust with diverse communities,” Dr. Hill said.

The Alzheimer’s Association has partnered with more than 500 diverse community-based groups on disease education programs to ensure families have information and resources to navigate this devastating disease.

The study was supported by the American Academy of Neurology Resident Research Scholarship. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Hill reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black people with dementia are less likely than their White peers to receive cognitive enhancers and other medications for dementia in the outpatient setting, preliminary data from a retrospective study show.

“There have been disparities regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medications in the treatment of dementia described in the literature, and disparities in the use of adjunctive treatments for other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia described in hospital and nursing home settings,” said study investigator Alice Hawkins, MD, with the department of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “However, less is known about use of dementia medications that people take at home. Our study found disparities in this area as well,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

More research needed

The researchers analyzed data on 3,655 Black and 12,885 White patients with a diagnosis of dementia who were seen at Mount Sinai. They evaluated utilization of five medication classes:

• cholinesterase inhibitors.
• N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists.
• selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
• antipsychotics.
• benzodiazepines.

They found that Black patients with dementia received cognitive enhancers less often than White patients with dementia (20% vs. 30% for cholinesterase inhibitors; 10% vs. 17% for NMDA antagonists).

Black patients with dementia were also less likely to receive medications for behavioral and psychological symptom management, compared with White peers (24% vs. 40% for SSRIs; 18% vs. 22% for antipsychotics; and 18% vs. 37% for benzodiazepines).

These disparities remained even after controlling for factors such as demographics and insurance coverage.

“Larger systemic forces such as systemic racism, quality of care, and provider bias are harder to pin down, particularly in the medical record, though they all may be playing a role in perpetuating these inequities. More research will be needed to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to these disparities,” said Dr. Hawkins.

The researchers found Black patients who were referred to a neurologist received cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA antagonists at rates comparable with White patients. “Therefore, referrals to specialists such as neurologists may decrease the disparities for these prescriptions,” Dr. Hawkins said.
 

Crucial research

Commenting on the findings, Carl V. Hill, PhD, MPH, Alzheimer’s Association chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, said the study “adds to previous research that points to inequities in the administering of medications for dementia symptoms, and highlights the inequities we know exist in dementia care.”

“Cognitive enhancers and other behavioral/psychological management drugs, while they don’t stop, slow, or cure dementia, can offer relief for some of the challenging symptoms associated with diseases caused by dementia. If people aren’t being appropriately prescribed medications that may offer symptom relief from this challenging disease, it could lead to poorer health outcomes,” said Dr. Hill.

“These data underscore the importance of health disparities research that is crucial in uncovering inequities in dementia treatment, care, and research for Black individuals, as well as all underrepresented populations.

“We must create a society in which the underserved, disproportionately affected, and underrepresented are safe, cared for, and valued. This can be done through enhancing cultural competence in health care settings, improving representation within the health care system, and engaging and building trust with diverse communities,” Dr. Hill said.

The Alzheimer’s Association has partnered with more than 500 diverse community-based groups on disease education programs to ensure families have information and resources to navigate this devastating disease.

The study was supported by the American Academy of Neurology Resident Research Scholarship. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Hill reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black people with dementia are less likely than their White peers to receive cognitive enhancers and other medications for dementia in the outpatient setting, preliminary data from a retrospective study show.

“There have been disparities regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medications in the treatment of dementia described in the literature, and disparities in the use of adjunctive treatments for other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia described in hospital and nursing home settings,” said study investigator Alice Hawkins, MD, with the department of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “However, less is known about use of dementia medications that people take at home. Our study found disparities in this area as well,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

More research needed

The researchers analyzed data on 3,655 Black and 12,885 White patients with a diagnosis of dementia who were seen at Mount Sinai. They evaluated utilization of five medication classes:

• cholinesterase inhibitors.
• N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists.
• selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
• antipsychotics.
• benzodiazepines.

They found that Black patients with dementia received cognitive enhancers less often than White patients with dementia (20% vs. 30% for cholinesterase inhibitors; 10% vs. 17% for NMDA antagonists).

Black patients with dementia were also less likely to receive medications for behavioral and psychological symptom management, compared with White peers (24% vs. 40% for SSRIs; 18% vs. 22% for antipsychotics; and 18% vs. 37% for benzodiazepines).

These disparities remained even after controlling for factors such as demographics and insurance coverage.

“Larger systemic forces such as systemic racism, quality of care, and provider bias are harder to pin down, particularly in the medical record, though they all may be playing a role in perpetuating these inequities. More research will be needed to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to these disparities,” said Dr. Hawkins.

The researchers found Black patients who were referred to a neurologist received cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA antagonists at rates comparable with White patients. “Therefore, referrals to specialists such as neurologists may decrease the disparities for these prescriptions,” Dr. Hawkins said.
 

Crucial research

Commenting on the findings, Carl V. Hill, PhD, MPH, Alzheimer’s Association chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, said the study “adds to previous research that points to inequities in the administering of medications for dementia symptoms, and highlights the inequities we know exist in dementia care.”

“Cognitive enhancers and other behavioral/psychological management drugs, while they don’t stop, slow, or cure dementia, can offer relief for some of the challenging symptoms associated with diseases caused by dementia. If people aren’t being appropriately prescribed medications that may offer symptom relief from this challenging disease, it could lead to poorer health outcomes,” said Dr. Hill.

“These data underscore the importance of health disparities research that is crucial in uncovering inequities in dementia treatment, care, and research for Black individuals, as well as all underrepresented populations.

“We must create a society in which the underserved, disproportionately affected, and underrepresented are safe, cared for, and valued. This can be done through enhancing cultural competence in health care settings, improving representation within the health care system, and engaging and building trust with diverse communities,” Dr. Hill said.

The Alzheimer’s Association has partnered with more than 500 diverse community-based groups on disease education programs to ensure families have information and resources to navigate this devastating disease.

The study was supported by the American Academy of Neurology Resident Research Scholarship. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Hill reported no relevant financial relationships.

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