Ob.Gyn. News

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In metastatic breast cancer, a fixed dose of capecitabine given on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule had similar efficacy and reduced adverse events compared with the standard 14-day-on, 7-day-off schedule, in a new study.

Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.

The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m², but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.

The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m² dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).

The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.

The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
 

Findings back up clinical practice

“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.

Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
 

Fixed dose versus body surface area

Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m² of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m².”

Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”

Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”

Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.

Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.

In metastatic breast cancer, a fixed dose of capecitabine given on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule had similar efficacy and reduced adverse events compared with the standard 14-day-on, 7-day-off schedule, in a new study.

Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.

The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m², but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.

The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m² dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).

The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.

The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
 

Findings back up clinical practice

“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.

Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
 

Fixed dose versus body surface area

Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m² of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m².”

Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”

Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”

Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.

Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.

In metastatic breast cancer, a fixed dose of capecitabine given on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule had similar efficacy and reduced adverse events compared with the standard 14-day-on, 7-day-off schedule, in a new study.

Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.

The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m², but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.

The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m² dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).

The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.

The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
 

Findings back up clinical practice

“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.

Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
 

Fixed dose versus body surface area

Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m² of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m².”

Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”

Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”

Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.

Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

CHICAGO – Nearly 60% of health care providers surveyed failed to choose the same treatment strategies for HER2– early breast cancer as a panel of five oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, a new study finds.

The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Study methods and results

For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.

Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.

The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.

Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.

The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.

The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.

For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.

Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.

In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.

Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”

“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.

Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
 

Decision tool’s value explained

According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.

The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.

“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – Nearly 60% of health care providers surveyed failed to choose the same treatment strategies for HER2– early breast cancer as a panel of five oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, a new study finds.

The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Study methods and results

For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.

Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.

The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.

Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.

The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.

The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.

For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.

Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.

In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.

Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”

“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.

Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
 

Decision tool’s value explained

According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.

The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.

“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – Nearly 60% of health care providers surveyed failed to choose the same treatment strategies for HER2– early breast cancer as a panel of five oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, a new study finds.

The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Study methods and results

For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.

Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.

The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.

Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.

The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.

The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.

For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.

Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.

In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.

Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”

“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.

Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
 

Decision tool’s value explained

According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.

The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.

“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.

Despite new options in non–hormone-based treatments, hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and should be considered for healthy menopausal women without contraindications within 10 years of their final menstrual periods.

This recommendation emerged from an updated position statement from the North American Menopause Society in its first review of the scientific literature since 2015. The statement specifically targets nonhormonal management of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, which occur in as many as 80% of menopausal women but are undertreated. The statement appears in the June issue of the Journal of The North American Menopause Society.

“Women with contraindications or objections to hormone treatment should be informed by professionals of evidence-based effective nonhormone treatment options,” stated a NAMS advisory panel led by Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, MS, professor and chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. The statement is one of multiple NAMS updates performed at regular intervals, said Dr. Shufelt, also past president of NAMS, in an interview. “But the research has changed, and we wanted to make clinicians aware of new medications. One of our interesting findings was more evidence that off-label use of the nonhormonal overactive bladder drug oxybutynin can lower the rate of hot flashes.”

Dr. Shufelt noted that many of the current update’s findings align with previous research, and stressed that the therapeutic recommendations apply specifically to VMS. “Not all menopause-related symptoms are vasomotor, however,” she said. “While a lot of the lifestyle options such as cooling techniques and exercise are not recommended for controlling hot flashes, diet and exercise changes can be beneficial for other health reasons.”

Although it’s the most effective option for VMS, hormone therapy is not suitable for women with contraindications such as a previous blood clot, an estrogen-dependent cancer, a family history of such cancers, or a personal preference against hormone use, Dr. Shufelt added, so nonhormonal alternatives are important to prevent women from wasting time and money on ineffective remedies. “Women need to know what works and what doesn’t,” she said.
 

Recommended nonhormonal therapies

Based on a rigorous review of the scientific evidence to date, NAMS found the following therapies to be effective: cognitive-behavioral therapy; clinical hypnosis; SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – which yield mild to moderate improvements; gabapentin – which lessens the frequency and severity of hot flashes; fezolinetant (Veozah), a novel first-in-class neurokinin B antagonist that was Food and Drug Administration–approved in May for VSM; and oxybutynin, an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic drug, that reduces moderate to severe VMS, although long-term use in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline, weight loss, and stellate ganglion block.

Therapies that were ineffective, associated with adverse effects (AEs), or lacking adequate evidence of efficacy and thus not recommended for VMS included: paced respiration; supplemental and herbal remedies such as black cohosh, milk thistle, and evening primrose; cooling techniques; trigger avoidance; exercise and yoga; mindfulness-based intervention and relaxation; suvorexant, a dual orexin-receptor antagonist used for insomnia; soy foods, extracts, and the soy metabolite equol; cannabinoids; acupuncture; calibration of neural oscillations; chiropractics; clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that is associated with significant AEs with no recent evidence of benefit over placebo; dietary modification; and pregabalin – which is associated with significant AEs and has controlled-substance prescribing restrictions.

Ultimately, clinicians should individualize menopause care to each patient. For example, “if a patient says that avoiding caffeine in the morning stops her from having hot flashes in the afternoon, that’s fine,” Dr. Shufelt said.
 

HT still most effective

“This statement is excellent, comprehensive, and evidence-based,” commented Jill M. Rabin MD, vice chair of education and development, obstetrics and gynecology, at Northshore University Hospital/LIJ Medical Center in Manhasset, N.Y., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

Dr. Rabin, coauthor of Mind Over Bladder was not involved in compiling the statement.

She agreed that hormone therapy is the most effective option for VMS and regularly prescribes it for suitable candidates in different forms depending on the type and severity of menopausal symptoms. As for nonhormonal options, Dr. Rabin added in an interview, some of those not recommended in the current NAMS statement could yet prove to be effective as more data accumulate. Suvorexant may be one to watch, for instance, but currently there are not enough data on its effectiveness.

“It’s really important to keep up on this nonhormonal research,” Dr. Rabin said. “As the population ages, more and more women will be in the peri- and postmenopausal periods and some have medical reasons for not taking hormone therapy.” It’s important to recommend nonhormonal therapies of proven benefit according to current high-level evidence, she said, “but also to keep your ear to the ground about those still under investigation.”

As for the lifestyle and alternative remedies of unproven benefit, Dr. Rabin added, there’s little harm in trying them. “As far as I know, no one’s ever died of relaxation and paced breathing.” In addition, a patient’s interaction with and sense of control over her own physiology provided by these techniques may be beneficial in themselves.

Dr. Shufelt reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health. Numerous authors reported consulting fees from and other financial ties to private-sector companies. Dr. Rabin had no relevant competing interests to disclose with regard to her comments.

Despite new options in non–hormone-based treatments, hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and should be considered for healthy menopausal women without contraindications within 10 years of their final menstrual periods.

This recommendation emerged from an updated position statement from the North American Menopause Society in its first review of the scientific literature since 2015. The statement specifically targets nonhormonal management of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, which occur in as many as 80% of menopausal women but are undertreated. The statement appears in the June issue of the Journal of The North American Menopause Society.

“Women with contraindications or objections to hormone treatment should be informed by professionals of evidence-based effective nonhormone treatment options,” stated a NAMS advisory panel led by Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, MS, professor and chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. The statement is one of multiple NAMS updates performed at regular intervals, said Dr. Shufelt, also past president of NAMS, in an interview. “But the research has changed, and we wanted to make clinicians aware of new medications. One of our interesting findings was more evidence that off-label use of the nonhormonal overactive bladder drug oxybutynin can lower the rate of hot flashes.”

Dr. Shufelt noted that many of the current update’s findings align with previous research, and stressed that the therapeutic recommendations apply specifically to VMS. “Not all menopause-related symptoms are vasomotor, however,” she said. “While a lot of the lifestyle options such as cooling techniques and exercise are not recommended for controlling hot flashes, diet and exercise changes can be beneficial for other health reasons.”

Although it’s the most effective option for VMS, hormone therapy is not suitable for women with contraindications such as a previous blood clot, an estrogen-dependent cancer, a family history of such cancers, or a personal preference against hormone use, Dr. Shufelt added, so nonhormonal alternatives are important to prevent women from wasting time and money on ineffective remedies. “Women need to know what works and what doesn’t,” she said.
 

Recommended nonhormonal therapies

Based on a rigorous review of the scientific evidence to date, NAMS found the following therapies to be effective: cognitive-behavioral therapy; clinical hypnosis; SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – which yield mild to moderate improvements; gabapentin – which lessens the frequency and severity of hot flashes; fezolinetant (Veozah), a novel first-in-class neurokinin B antagonist that was Food and Drug Administration–approved in May for VSM; and oxybutynin, an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic drug, that reduces moderate to severe VMS, although long-term use in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline, weight loss, and stellate ganglion block.

Therapies that were ineffective, associated with adverse effects (AEs), or lacking adequate evidence of efficacy and thus not recommended for VMS included: paced respiration; supplemental and herbal remedies such as black cohosh, milk thistle, and evening primrose; cooling techniques; trigger avoidance; exercise and yoga; mindfulness-based intervention and relaxation; suvorexant, a dual orexin-receptor antagonist used for insomnia; soy foods, extracts, and the soy metabolite equol; cannabinoids; acupuncture; calibration of neural oscillations; chiropractics; clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that is associated with significant AEs with no recent evidence of benefit over placebo; dietary modification; and pregabalin – which is associated with significant AEs and has controlled-substance prescribing restrictions.

Ultimately, clinicians should individualize menopause care to each patient. For example, “if a patient says that avoiding caffeine in the morning stops her from having hot flashes in the afternoon, that’s fine,” Dr. Shufelt said.
 

HT still most effective

“This statement is excellent, comprehensive, and evidence-based,” commented Jill M. Rabin MD, vice chair of education and development, obstetrics and gynecology, at Northshore University Hospital/LIJ Medical Center in Manhasset, N.Y., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

Dr. Rabin, coauthor of Mind Over Bladder was not involved in compiling the statement.

She agreed that hormone therapy is the most effective option for VMS and regularly prescribes it for suitable candidates in different forms depending on the type and severity of menopausal symptoms. As for nonhormonal options, Dr. Rabin added in an interview, some of those not recommended in the current NAMS statement could yet prove to be effective as more data accumulate. Suvorexant may be one to watch, for instance, but currently there are not enough data on its effectiveness.

“It’s really important to keep up on this nonhormonal research,” Dr. Rabin said. “As the population ages, more and more women will be in the peri- and postmenopausal periods and some have medical reasons for not taking hormone therapy.” It’s important to recommend nonhormonal therapies of proven benefit according to current high-level evidence, she said, “but also to keep your ear to the ground about those still under investigation.”

As for the lifestyle and alternative remedies of unproven benefit, Dr. Rabin added, there’s little harm in trying them. “As far as I know, no one’s ever died of relaxation and paced breathing.” In addition, a patient’s interaction with and sense of control over her own physiology provided by these techniques may be beneficial in themselves.

Dr. Shufelt reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health. Numerous authors reported consulting fees from and other financial ties to private-sector companies. Dr. Rabin had no relevant competing interests to disclose with regard to her comments.

Despite new options in non–hormone-based treatments, hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and should be considered for healthy menopausal women without contraindications within 10 years of their final menstrual periods.

This recommendation emerged from an updated position statement from the North American Menopause Society in its first review of the scientific literature since 2015. The statement specifically targets nonhormonal management of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, which occur in as many as 80% of menopausal women but are undertreated. The statement appears in the June issue of the Journal of The North American Menopause Society.

“Women with contraindications or objections to hormone treatment should be informed by professionals of evidence-based effective nonhormone treatment options,” stated a NAMS advisory panel led by Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, MS, professor and chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. The statement is one of multiple NAMS updates performed at regular intervals, said Dr. Shufelt, also past president of NAMS, in an interview. “But the research has changed, and we wanted to make clinicians aware of new medications. One of our interesting findings was more evidence that off-label use of the nonhormonal overactive bladder drug oxybutynin can lower the rate of hot flashes.”

Dr. Shufelt noted that many of the current update’s findings align with previous research, and stressed that the therapeutic recommendations apply specifically to VMS. “Not all menopause-related symptoms are vasomotor, however,” she said. “While a lot of the lifestyle options such as cooling techniques and exercise are not recommended for controlling hot flashes, diet and exercise changes can be beneficial for other health reasons.”

Although it’s the most effective option for VMS, hormone therapy is not suitable for women with contraindications such as a previous blood clot, an estrogen-dependent cancer, a family history of such cancers, or a personal preference against hormone use, Dr. Shufelt added, so nonhormonal alternatives are important to prevent women from wasting time and money on ineffective remedies. “Women need to know what works and what doesn’t,” she said.
 

Recommended nonhormonal therapies

Based on a rigorous review of the scientific evidence to date, NAMS found the following therapies to be effective: cognitive-behavioral therapy; clinical hypnosis; SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – which yield mild to moderate improvements; gabapentin – which lessens the frequency and severity of hot flashes; fezolinetant (Veozah), a novel first-in-class neurokinin B antagonist that was Food and Drug Administration–approved in May for VSM; and oxybutynin, an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic drug, that reduces moderate to severe VMS, although long-term use in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline, weight loss, and stellate ganglion block.

Therapies that were ineffective, associated with adverse effects (AEs), or lacking adequate evidence of efficacy and thus not recommended for VMS included: paced respiration; supplemental and herbal remedies such as black cohosh, milk thistle, and evening primrose; cooling techniques; trigger avoidance; exercise and yoga; mindfulness-based intervention and relaxation; suvorexant, a dual orexin-receptor antagonist used for insomnia; soy foods, extracts, and the soy metabolite equol; cannabinoids; acupuncture; calibration of neural oscillations; chiropractics; clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that is associated with significant AEs with no recent evidence of benefit over placebo; dietary modification; and pregabalin – which is associated with significant AEs and has controlled-substance prescribing restrictions.

Ultimately, clinicians should individualize menopause care to each patient. For example, “if a patient says that avoiding caffeine in the morning stops her from having hot flashes in the afternoon, that’s fine,” Dr. Shufelt said.
 

HT still most effective

“This statement is excellent, comprehensive, and evidence-based,” commented Jill M. Rabin MD, vice chair of education and development, obstetrics and gynecology, at Northshore University Hospital/LIJ Medical Center in Manhasset, N.Y., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

Dr. Rabin, coauthor of Mind Over Bladder was not involved in compiling the statement.

She agreed that hormone therapy is the most effective option for VMS and regularly prescribes it for suitable candidates in different forms depending on the type and severity of menopausal symptoms. As for nonhormonal options, Dr. Rabin added in an interview, some of those not recommended in the current NAMS statement could yet prove to be effective as more data accumulate. Suvorexant may be one to watch, for instance, but currently there are not enough data on its effectiveness.

“It’s really important to keep up on this nonhormonal research,” Dr. Rabin said. “As the population ages, more and more women will be in the peri- and postmenopausal periods and some have medical reasons for not taking hormone therapy.” It’s important to recommend nonhormonal therapies of proven benefit according to current high-level evidence, she said, “but also to keep your ear to the ground about those still under investigation.”

As for the lifestyle and alternative remedies of unproven benefit, Dr. Rabin added, there’s little harm in trying them. “As far as I know, no one’s ever died of relaxation and paced breathing.” In addition, a patient’s interaction with and sense of control over her own physiology provided by these techniques may be beneficial in themselves.

Dr. Shufelt reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health. Numerous authors reported consulting fees from and other financial ties to private-sector companies. Dr. Rabin had no relevant competing interests to disclose with regard to her comments.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.