Randy Dotinga

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Armed with new statistics, neurologist Joseph R. Berger, MD, has a message for colleagues about the widely feared risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in multiple sclerosis: It’s not as inevitable as you might think.

“You can actually prevent this disease from occurring because we have risk-limiting strategies in many circumstances,” said Dr. Berger of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation on PML at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Unlike other conditions such as HIV, MS itself is not linked to a higher risk of PML, said Dr. Berger, a leading PML researcher. Instead, it’s the medications that spark the condition, he said, with at least three and possibly four drugs posing a risk to patients.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) is especially risky. “We know that the risk with natalizumab is incredibly high in the context of JC [John Cunningham] virus antibody positivity and prolonged therapy,” Dr. Berger said in an interview after his presentation.

Still, “you can safely give natalizumab for a short period of time when treating patients with aggressive MS,” he said. “I will frequently employ that strategy even in the context of JC virus antibody positivity.”

According to Dr. Berger, there’s no risk of PML when natalizumab is used for under 8 months (Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017 Feb;12:59-63).

However, “if you leave people on the drug indefinitely, there is a substantial risk of developing PML,” he said. “Individuals who have been left on the drug for 2 years, who’ve seen prior immunosuppressant therapy, who are JC virus antibody positive – that group of individuals develops PML at rates of 1 in 50 to 1 in 100.”

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Armed with new statistics, neurologist Joseph R. Berger, MD, has a message for colleagues about the widely feared risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in multiple sclerosis: It’s not as inevitable as you might think.

“You can actually prevent this disease from occurring because we have risk-limiting strategies in many circumstances,” said Dr. Berger of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation on PML at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Unlike other conditions such as HIV, MS itself is not linked to a higher risk of PML, said Dr. Berger, a leading PML researcher. Instead, it’s the medications that spark the condition, he said, with at least three and possibly four drugs posing a risk to patients.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) is especially risky. “We know that the risk with natalizumab is incredibly high in the context of JC [John Cunningham] virus antibody positivity and prolonged therapy,” Dr. Berger said in an interview after his presentation.

Still, “you can safely give natalizumab for a short period of time when treating patients with aggressive MS,” he said. “I will frequently employ that strategy even in the context of JC virus antibody positivity.”

According to Dr. Berger, there’s no risk of PML when natalizumab is used for under 8 months (Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017 Feb;12:59-63).

However, “if you leave people on the drug indefinitely, there is a substantial risk of developing PML,” he said. “Individuals who have been left on the drug for 2 years, who’ve seen prior immunosuppressant therapy, who are JC virus antibody positive – that group of individuals develops PML at rates of 1 in 50 to 1 in 100.”

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Armed with new statistics, neurologist Joseph R. Berger, MD, has a message for colleagues about the widely feared risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in multiple sclerosis: It’s not as inevitable as you might think.

“You can actually prevent this disease from occurring because we have risk-limiting strategies in many circumstances,” said Dr. Berger of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation on PML at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Unlike other conditions such as HIV, MS itself is not linked to a higher risk of PML, said Dr. Berger, a leading PML researcher. Instead, it’s the medications that spark the condition, he said, with at least three and possibly four drugs posing a risk to patients.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) is especially risky. “We know that the risk with natalizumab is incredibly high in the context of JC [John Cunningham] virus antibody positivity and prolonged therapy,” Dr. Berger said in an interview after his presentation.

Still, “you can safely give natalizumab for a short period of time when treating patients with aggressive MS,” he said. “I will frequently employ that strategy even in the context of JC virus antibody positivity.”

According to Dr. Berger, there’s no risk of PML when natalizumab is used for under 8 months (Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017 Feb;12:59-63).

However, “if you leave people on the drug indefinitely, there is a substantial risk of developing PML,” he said. “Individuals who have been left on the drug for 2 years, who’ve seen prior immunosuppressant therapy, who are JC virus antibody positive – that group of individuals develops PML at rates of 1 in 50 to 1 in 100.”

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Recent research into comorbidities in multiple sclerosis – including head-scratching findings about lower cancer rates – is shedding light on the links between the disease and other illnesses, according to an epidemiologist specializing in MS.

“People should be mindful that if they look at having a positive impact on those comorbidities, they may have the ability to benefit patients in context of their MS,” Helen Tremlett, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. She is the Canada Research Chair in Neuroepidemiology and Multiple Sclerosis at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In recent years, research into comorbidities in MS has risen dramatically. Dr. Tremlett found that the number of papers per year in PubMed that address MS and comorbidity has risen from roughly 30 in 2007 to about 80 in 2015, although the numbers dipped to about 50 and 60, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

A 2015 systematic review of research into MS and comorbidities reported that while “findings were inconsistent overall,” studies suggested that “meningiomas and possibly urinary system cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, early cataracts, and restless legs syndrome were more common than expected in the MS population.” (Mult Scler. 2015 Mar;21[3]:263-81).

Notably, most cancers are missing from this list. In fact, Dr. Tremlett cowrote a 2012 study that found lower risks of all cancers and several specific types of cancer – breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma – in MS patients, compared with age- and gender-matched controls (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2973-9).

According to Dr. Tremlett, there are several theories about the apparent lower cancer risk in patients with MS. Perhaps their immune systems are hypervigilant, or maybe MS diagnoses inspire healthier lifestyles.

Researchers have been intrigued by another possibility – that cancer diagnoses are being delayed in patients with MS. Indeed, the 2012 study found that tumor sizes at diagnosis in patients with MS were larger than expected in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer (P = .04).

“We couldn’t record why that’s the case, but there may be some so-called ‘diagnostic neglect,’ ” she said. “You could imagine a scenario where a typical person with MS goes to see their physician and says, ‘I’m tired. I have fatigue,’ and the physician says, ‘Yes, you have MS, that’s what you should expect.’ Someone in the general population might get additional investigation, get blood work done, and their cancer might be found earlier.”

It’s also possible, she said, that cancer isn’t picked up earlier because it can be difficult to screen people with disabilities. “It’s only recently that physicians can offer the Pap smear to women in a wheelchair.”

On another front, there’s evidence linking comorbidities to worsening MS. A 2018 study coauthored by Dr. Tremlett found that patients with more comorbidities had more disability. Specifically, ischemic heart disease and epilepsy were associated with greater Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (Neurology. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004885).

Other research coauthored by Dr. Tremlett has linked comorbidities in MS – specifically, hyperlipidemia, migraine, and three or more comorbidities – to higher risk of MS relapse (Neurology. 2017 Dec 12;89[24]:2455-61).

Dr. Tremlett reported having no relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Recent research into comorbidities in multiple sclerosis – including head-scratching findings about lower cancer rates – is shedding light on the links between the disease and other illnesses, according to an epidemiologist specializing in MS.

“People should be mindful that if they look at having a positive impact on those comorbidities, they may have the ability to benefit patients in context of their MS,” Helen Tremlett, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. She is the Canada Research Chair in Neuroepidemiology and Multiple Sclerosis at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In recent years, research into comorbidities in MS has risen dramatically. Dr. Tremlett found that the number of papers per year in PubMed that address MS and comorbidity has risen from roughly 30 in 2007 to about 80 in 2015, although the numbers dipped to about 50 and 60, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

A 2015 systematic review of research into MS and comorbidities reported that while “findings were inconsistent overall,” studies suggested that “meningiomas and possibly urinary system cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, early cataracts, and restless legs syndrome were more common than expected in the MS population.” (Mult Scler. 2015 Mar;21[3]:263-81).

Notably, most cancers are missing from this list. In fact, Dr. Tremlett cowrote a 2012 study that found lower risks of all cancers and several specific types of cancer – breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma – in MS patients, compared with age- and gender-matched controls (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2973-9).

According to Dr. Tremlett, there are several theories about the apparent lower cancer risk in patients with MS. Perhaps their immune systems are hypervigilant, or maybe MS diagnoses inspire healthier lifestyles.

Researchers have been intrigued by another possibility – that cancer diagnoses are being delayed in patients with MS. Indeed, the 2012 study found that tumor sizes at diagnosis in patients with MS were larger than expected in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer (P = .04).

“We couldn’t record why that’s the case, but there may be some so-called ‘diagnostic neglect,’ ” she said. “You could imagine a scenario where a typical person with MS goes to see their physician and says, ‘I’m tired. I have fatigue,’ and the physician says, ‘Yes, you have MS, that’s what you should expect.’ Someone in the general population might get additional investigation, get blood work done, and their cancer might be found earlier.”

It’s also possible, she said, that cancer isn’t picked up earlier because it can be difficult to screen people with disabilities. “It’s only recently that physicians can offer the Pap smear to women in a wheelchair.”

On another front, there’s evidence linking comorbidities to worsening MS. A 2018 study coauthored by Dr. Tremlett found that patients with more comorbidities had more disability. Specifically, ischemic heart disease and epilepsy were associated with greater Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (Neurology. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004885).

Other research coauthored by Dr. Tremlett has linked comorbidities in MS – specifically, hyperlipidemia, migraine, and three or more comorbidities – to higher risk of MS relapse (Neurology. 2017 Dec 12;89[24]:2455-61).

Dr. Tremlett reported having no relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Recent research into comorbidities in multiple sclerosis – including head-scratching findings about lower cancer rates – is shedding light on the links between the disease and other illnesses, according to an epidemiologist specializing in MS.

“People should be mindful that if they look at having a positive impact on those comorbidities, they may have the ability to benefit patients in context of their MS,” Helen Tremlett, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. She is the Canada Research Chair in Neuroepidemiology and Multiple Sclerosis at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In recent years, research into comorbidities in MS has risen dramatically. Dr. Tremlett found that the number of papers per year in PubMed that address MS and comorbidity has risen from roughly 30 in 2007 to about 80 in 2015, although the numbers dipped to about 50 and 60, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

A 2015 systematic review of research into MS and comorbidities reported that while “findings were inconsistent overall,” studies suggested that “meningiomas and possibly urinary system cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, early cataracts, and restless legs syndrome were more common than expected in the MS population.” (Mult Scler. 2015 Mar;21[3]:263-81).

Notably, most cancers are missing from this list. In fact, Dr. Tremlett cowrote a 2012 study that found lower risks of all cancers and several specific types of cancer – breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma – in MS patients, compared with age- and gender-matched controls (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2973-9).

According to Dr. Tremlett, there are several theories about the apparent lower cancer risk in patients with MS. Perhaps their immune systems are hypervigilant, or maybe MS diagnoses inspire healthier lifestyles.

Researchers have been intrigued by another possibility – that cancer diagnoses are being delayed in patients with MS. Indeed, the 2012 study found that tumor sizes at diagnosis in patients with MS were larger than expected in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer (P = .04).

“We couldn’t record why that’s the case, but there may be some so-called ‘diagnostic neglect,’ ” she said. “You could imagine a scenario where a typical person with MS goes to see their physician and says, ‘I’m tired. I have fatigue,’ and the physician says, ‘Yes, you have MS, that’s what you should expect.’ Someone in the general population might get additional investigation, get blood work done, and their cancer might be found earlier.”

It’s also possible, she said, that cancer isn’t picked up earlier because it can be difficult to screen people with disabilities. “It’s only recently that physicians can offer the Pap smear to women in a wheelchair.”

On another front, there’s evidence linking comorbidities to worsening MS. A 2018 study coauthored by Dr. Tremlett found that patients with more comorbidities had more disability. Specifically, ischemic heart disease and epilepsy were associated with greater Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (Neurology. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004885).

Other research coauthored by Dr. Tremlett has linked comorbidities in MS – specifically, hyperlipidemia, migraine, and three or more comorbidities – to higher risk of MS relapse (Neurology. 2017 Dec 12;89[24]:2455-61).

Dr. Tremlett reported having no relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Jeffrey B. English, MD, of the MS Center of Atlanta, knows which quality measures physicians and their patients with multiple sclerosis think are important. After all, he and his colleagues have surveyed them about that very topic.

But he has little time to monitor these measures since he’s too busy with a more overwhelming task: keeping track of unrelated quality measures as required by the federal government.

“When they developed quality measures under the MACRA law, they were not thinking about MS people in general. They were very primary care based,” Dr. English said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

In terms of MS, he said, “no one really knows what the correct outcome measures are.”

Dr. English knows more than most about quality measures preferred by neurologists and patients. At the annual CMSC meeting last year, he presented results from a survey of 11 physicians and 423 patients about the measures of care they consider most important. The patient survey asked about several measures recommended by the American Academy of Neurology plus other measures recommended by the physicians.

The two groups – physicians and patients – agreed on the top four measures: change observed via MRI, change observed via exam, quality of life, and fatigue. However, they disagreed on the ranking within the top four spots.

The least important measures for patients were exercise levels, depression, medication compliance, and relapses.

Dr. English wants to “be able to follow what the patients want me to follow.” However, he hasn’t been able to do so since “25% of my time with patients, in between patients and after hours, is spent trying to comply with outcome measures from the new health care system that are of no benefit to the patient,” he said.

He’s referring to the quality measures that many physicians are tracking to get reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.

Value-based care posts other challenges for MS physicians, he said, since MS care is especially expensive. Accountable Care Organizations are looking at cost savings in closed systems, he said, and that could spell trouble because patients with MS cost more.

As a 2015 report noted, first-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS cost about $60,000, and “costs for these agents have increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation. Newer DMTs commonly entered the market with a cost 25%-60% higher than existing DMTs” (Neurology. 2015 May 26;84[21]:2185-92).

“If I’m in an ACO, and I’m taking care of a lot of MS patients, I’ll already lose money for the accountable care system,” Dr. English said. “They may not necessarily want an MS center inside an ACO.”

What can doctors do? “Advocacy efforts are pretty difficult for physicians,” Dr. English said. “Our hope is that the CMSC will be a clearinghouse for doctors who have ideas and efforts and advocacy, and somehow channel that into the actual provision of care. You have people advocating for medications and for research and for patients, but there’s nobody advocating for the actual care that’s going on, the boots-on-the-ground care. That’s where CMSC should play a big role.”

Dr. English disclosed that he has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Jeffrey B. English, MD, of the MS Center of Atlanta, knows which quality measures physicians and their patients with multiple sclerosis think are important. After all, he and his colleagues have surveyed them about that very topic.

But he has little time to monitor these measures since he’s too busy with a more overwhelming task: keeping track of unrelated quality measures as required by the federal government.

“When they developed quality measures under the MACRA law, they were not thinking about MS people in general. They were very primary care based,” Dr. English said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

In terms of MS, he said, “no one really knows what the correct outcome measures are.”

Dr. English knows more than most about quality measures preferred by neurologists and patients. At the annual CMSC meeting last year, he presented results from a survey of 11 physicians and 423 patients about the measures of care they consider most important. The patient survey asked about several measures recommended by the American Academy of Neurology plus other measures recommended by the physicians.

The two groups – physicians and patients – agreed on the top four measures: change observed via MRI, change observed via exam, quality of life, and fatigue. However, they disagreed on the ranking within the top four spots.

The least important measures for patients were exercise levels, depression, medication compliance, and relapses.

Dr. English wants to “be able to follow what the patients want me to follow.” However, he hasn’t been able to do so since “25% of my time with patients, in between patients and after hours, is spent trying to comply with outcome measures from the new health care system that are of no benefit to the patient,” he said.

He’s referring to the quality measures that many physicians are tracking to get reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.

Value-based care posts other challenges for MS physicians, he said, since MS care is especially expensive. Accountable Care Organizations are looking at cost savings in closed systems, he said, and that could spell trouble because patients with MS cost more.

As a 2015 report noted, first-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS cost about $60,000, and “costs for these agents have increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation. Newer DMTs commonly entered the market with a cost 25%-60% higher than existing DMTs” (Neurology. 2015 May 26;84[21]:2185-92).

“If I’m in an ACO, and I’m taking care of a lot of MS patients, I’ll already lose money for the accountable care system,” Dr. English said. “They may not necessarily want an MS center inside an ACO.”

What can doctors do? “Advocacy efforts are pretty difficult for physicians,” Dr. English said. “Our hope is that the CMSC will be a clearinghouse for doctors who have ideas and efforts and advocacy, and somehow channel that into the actual provision of care. You have people advocating for medications and for research and for patients, but there’s nobody advocating for the actual care that’s going on, the boots-on-the-ground care. That’s where CMSC should play a big role.”

Dr. English disclosed that he has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Jeffrey B. English, MD, of the MS Center of Atlanta, knows which quality measures physicians and their patients with multiple sclerosis think are important. After all, he and his colleagues have surveyed them about that very topic.

But he has little time to monitor these measures since he’s too busy with a more overwhelming task: keeping track of unrelated quality measures as required by the federal government.

“When they developed quality measures under the MACRA law, they were not thinking about MS people in general. They were very primary care based,” Dr. English said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

In terms of MS, he said, “no one really knows what the correct outcome measures are.”

Dr. English knows more than most about quality measures preferred by neurologists and patients. At the annual CMSC meeting last year, he presented results from a survey of 11 physicians and 423 patients about the measures of care they consider most important. The patient survey asked about several measures recommended by the American Academy of Neurology plus other measures recommended by the physicians.

The two groups – physicians and patients – agreed on the top four measures: change observed via MRI, change observed via exam, quality of life, and fatigue. However, they disagreed on the ranking within the top four spots.

The least important measures for patients were exercise levels, depression, medication compliance, and relapses.

Dr. English wants to “be able to follow what the patients want me to follow.” However, he hasn’t been able to do so since “25% of my time with patients, in between patients and after hours, is spent trying to comply with outcome measures from the new health care system that are of no benefit to the patient,” he said.

He’s referring to the quality measures that many physicians are tracking to get reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.

Value-based care posts other challenges for MS physicians, he said, since MS care is especially expensive. Accountable Care Organizations are looking at cost savings in closed systems, he said, and that could spell trouble because patients with MS cost more.

As a 2015 report noted, first-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS cost about $60,000, and “costs for these agents have increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation. Newer DMTs commonly entered the market with a cost 25%-60% higher than existing DMTs” (Neurology. 2015 May 26;84[21]:2185-92).

“If I’m in an ACO, and I’m taking care of a lot of MS patients, I’ll already lose money for the accountable care system,” Dr. English said. “They may not necessarily want an MS center inside an ACO.”

What can doctors do? “Advocacy efforts are pretty difficult for physicians,” Dr. English said. “Our hope is that the CMSC will be a clearinghouse for doctors who have ideas and efforts and advocacy, and somehow channel that into the actual provision of care. You have people advocating for medications and for research and for patients, but there’s nobody advocating for the actual care that’s going on, the boots-on-the-ground care. That’s where CMSC should play a big role.”

Dr. English disclosed that he has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – Two thoracic societies are being challenged to review their rejection of live broadcasts of surgical procedures at medical meetings.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons “should modify their stance on live surgery as an educational tool like almost all of their sister organizations,” said Joseph E. Bavaria, MD, FACS, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Presently, it is effectively a ban on the practice. But there are no data to suggest that it does harm to patients if done with proper constraints.”

He pointed to a 2011 study that examined 250 cardiac procedures that were broadcast live to 32 scientific meetings. Researchers found that “there is no evidence for an excess perioperative risk for patients operated under the conditions of live broadcasting” (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40[2]:367-71).

A member of the audience at the AATS session pointed out that the study may be misleading because only top surgeons may be willing to perform procedures live on television. Dr. Bavaria responded by noting that the outcomes of surgeries performed on live video were not worse.

Skeptics have also expressed concern about the potential for sensationalism in live broadcasts and the drive for participants to make a splash: “the demands of ‘the performance,’ including questions and discussion with the audience, may divert the surgeon’s attention and produce an inferior outcome,” wrote three physicians in 2011 (J Surg Educ. 2011 Jan-Feb; 68[1]:58-61).

The trio also expressed worry about safety risks posed by extra equipment and extra people in the operating room during a live broadcast. However, Dr. Bavaria said the crowded conditions of an operation observed in person – instead of via video – could be worse: “You don’t have a sterile environment, you have people hanging around all over. A moderated live session could be better for the surgeon and the patient, rather than having a bunch of people in the room.”

Dr. Bavaria was also asked why surgeries couldn’t be recorded for airing later instead of being broadcast live, as this approach “takes you out of the nexus of having two masters, the patient and the audience.” In response, Dr. Bavaria said editing takes extra time in order to capture the nuances of the live procedure.

Dr. Bavaria reports no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Two thoracic societies are being challenged to review their rejection of live broadcasts of surgical procedures at medical meetings.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons “should modify their stance on live surgery as an educational tool like almost all of their sister organizations,” said Joseph E. Bavaria, MD, FACS, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Presently, it is effectively a ban on the practice. But there are no data to suggest that it does harm to patients if done with proper constraints.”

He pointed to a 2011 study that examined 250 cardiac procedures that were broadcast live to 32 scientific meetings. Researchers found that “there is no evidence for an excess perioperative risk for patients operated under the conditions of live broadcasting” (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40[2]:367-71).

A member of the audience at the AATS session pointed out that the study may be misleading because only top surgeons may be willing to perform procedures live on television. Dr. Bavaria responded by noting that the outcomes of surgeries performed on live video were not worse.

Skeptics have also expressed concern about the potential for sensationalism in live broadcasts and the drive for participants to make a splash: “the demands of ‘the performance,’ including questions and discussion with the audience, may divert the surgeon’s attention and produce an inferior outcome,” wrote three physicians in 2011 (J Surg Educ. 2011 Jan-Feb; 68[1]:58-61).

The trio also expressed worry about safety risks posed by extra equipment and extra people in the operating room during a live broadcast. However, Dr. Bavaria said the crowded conditions of an operation observed in person – instead of via video – could be worse: “You don’t have a sterile environment, you have people hanging around all over. A moderated live session could be better for the surgeon and the patient, rather than having a bunch of people in the room.”

Dr. Bavaria was also asked why surgeries couldn’t be recorded for airing later instead of being broadcast live, as this approach “takes you out of the nexus of having two masters, the patient and the audience.” In response, Dr. Bavaria said editing takes extra time in order to capture the nuances of the live procedure.

Dr. Bavaria reports no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Two thoracic societies are being challenged to review their rejection of live broadcasts of surgical procedures at medical meetings.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons “should modify their stance on live surgery as an educational tool like almost all of their sister organizations,” said Joseph E. Bavaria, MD, FACS, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Presently, it is effectively a ban on the practice. But there are no data to suggest that it does harm to patients if done with proper constraints.”

He pointed to a 2011 study that examined 250 cardiac procedures that were broadcast live to 32 scientific meetings. Researchers found that “there is no evidence for an excess perioperative risk for patients operated under the conditions of live broadcasting” (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40[2]:367-71).

A member of the audience at the AATS session pointed out that the study may be misleading because only top surgeons may be willing to perform procedures live on television. Dr. Bavaria responded by noting that the outcomes of surgeries performed on live video were not worse.

Skeptics have also expressed concern about the potential for sensationalism in live broadcasts and the drive for participants to make a splash: “the demands of ‘the performance,’ including questions and discussion with the audience, may divert the surgeon’s attention and produce an inferior outcome,” wrote three physicians in 2011 (J Surg Educ. 2011 Jan-Feb; 68[1]:58-61).

The trio also expressed worry about safety risks posed by extra equipment and extra people in the operating room during a live broadcast. However, Dr. Bavaria said the crowded conditions of an operation observed in person – instead of via video – could be worse: “You don’t have a sterile environment, you have people hanging around all over. A moderated live session could be better for the surgeon and the patient, rather than having a bunch of people in the room.”

Dr. Bavaria was also asked why surgeries couldn’t be recorded for airing later instead of being broadcast live, as this approach “takes you out of the nexus of having two masters, the patient and the audience.” In response, Dr. Bavaria said editing takes extra time in order to capture the nuances of the live procedure.

Dr. Bavaria reports no relevant disclosures.

As patients with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers face various challenges in the American health care system, the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) is re-energizing its focus on advocacy. The 2018 annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., will feature programming designed to teach MS professionals and researchers how to speak up and let their voices be heard.

“CMSC has re-engaged in advocacy, in a more focused and energized way, because of mounting concerns that there is inadequate advocacy pressure on some of the critical issues negatively impacting the quality and comprehensive nature of MS care required of people living with MS,” said Lisa Taylor Skutnik, a physical therapist and chief operating officer of the CMSC. “Both people living with MS and the clinicians dedicated to treating them are increasingly frustrated and powerless in attempts to facilitate the right care and resources for people living with MS. Our members are facing significant barriers and obstacles to ensure timely and seamless comprehensive care.”

As patients with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers face various challenges in the American health care system, the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) is re-energizing its focus on advocacy. The 2018 annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., will feature programming designed to teach MS professionals and researchers how to speak up and let their voices be heard.

“CMSC has re-engaged in advocacy, in a more focused and energized way, because of mounting concerns that there is inadequate advocacy pressure on some of the critical issues negatively impacting the quality and comprehensive nature of MS care required of people living with MS,” said Lisa Taylor Skutnik, a physical therapist and chief operating officer of the CMSC. “Both people living with MS and the clinicians dedicated to treating them are increasingly frustrated and powerless in attempts to facilitate the right care and resources for people living with MS. Our members are facing significant barriers and obstacles to ensure timely and seamless comprehensive care.”

As patients with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers face various challenges in the American health care system, the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) is re-energizing its focus on advocacy. The 2018 annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., will feature programming designed to teach MS professionals and researchers how to speak up and let their voices be heard.

“CMSC has re-engaged in advocacy, in a more focused and energized way, because of mounting concerns that there is inadequate advocacy pressure on some of the critical issues negatively impacting the quality and comprehensive nature of MS care required of people living with MS,” said Lisa Taylor Skutnik, a physical therapist and chief operating officer of the CMSC. “Both people living with MS and the clinicians dedicated to treating them are increasingly frustrated and powerless in attempts to facilitate the right care and resources for people living with MS. Our members are facing significant barriers and obstacles to ensure timely and seamless comprehensive care.”

This year’s annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Nashville, Tenn., will feature an intense focus on rehabilitation in MS. The topic is often a priority for patients but not necessarily at top of mind for health care providers, said rehabilitation therapist Patty Bobryk, secretary of the CMSC.

“This year, some of the Rehab Track topics include addressing respiratory issues in MS, exploring the impact of visual impairments on rehab, and recommending the proper orthotics, as well as discussing treatments that focus on mind-body understanding,” said Ms. Bobryk of MS Comprehensive Care Center of Central Florida, Orlando. She serves as cochair of the International Organization of MS Rehabilitation Therapists.

This year’s annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Nashville, Tenn., will feature an intense focus on rehabilitation in MS. The topic is often a priority for patients but not necessarily at top of mind for health care providers, said rehabilitation therapist Patty Bobryk, secretary of the CMSC.

“This year, some of the Rehab Track topics include addressing respiratory issues in MS, exploring the impact of visual impairments on rehab, and recommending the proper orthotics, as well as discussing treatments that focus on mind-body understanding,” said Ms. Bobryk of MS Comprehensive Care Center of Central Florida, Orlando. She serves as cochair of the International Organization of MS Rehabilitation Therapists.

This year’s annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers in Nashville, Tenn., will feature an intense focus on rehabilitation in MS. The topic is often a priority for patients but not necessarily at top of mind for health care providers, said rehabilitation therapist Patty Bobryk, secretary of the CMSC.

“This year, some of the Rehab Track topics include addressing respiratory issues in MS, exploring the impact of visual impairments on rehab, and recommending the proper orthotics, as well as discussing treatments that focus on mind-body understanding,” said Ms. Bobryk of MS Comprehensive Care Center of Central Florida, Orlando. She serves as cochair of the International Organization of MS Rehabilitation Therapists.

More than 2,000 members of the multiple sclerosis care, advocacy, research, and patient communities will gather in Nashville, Tenn., May 30–June 2 for the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Dozens of topics will be discussed, ranging from complementary/alternative therapies, ethics, and neuropsychiatry to neuroimmunology and disease models, relapse management, and self-care. Clinicians also will tackle sensitive topics such as suicide, depression, and cognitive impairment.

“Accredited continuing education will be offered for MDs, registered nurses, pharmacists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists,” said Gary Cutter, PhD, president of the CMSC. “Our offerings include beginner courses, advanced science sessions, rehab and mental health tracks, platform and poster sessions, and roundtables.”

More than 2,000 members of the multiple sclerosis care, advocacy, research, and patient communities will gather in Nashville, Tenn., May 30–June 2 for the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Dozens of topics will be discussed, ranging from complementary/alternative therapies, ethics, and neuropsychiatry to neuroimmunology and disease models, relapse management, and self-care. Clinicians also will tackle sensitive topics such as suicide, depression, and cognitive impairment.

“Accredited continuing education will be offered for MDs, registered nurses, pharmacists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists,” said Gary Cutter, PhD, president of the CMSC. “Our offerings include beginner courses, advanced science sessions, rehab and mental health tracks, platform and poster sessions, and roundtables.”

More than 2,000 members of the multiple sclerosis care, advocacy, research, and patient communities will gather in Nashville, Tenn., May 30–June 2 for the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Dozens of topics will be discussed, ranging from complementary/alternative therapies, ethics, and neuropsychiatry to neuroimmunology and disease models, relapse management, and self-care. Clinicians also will tackle sensitive topics such as suicide, depression, and cognitive impairment.

“Accredited continuing education will be offered for MDs, registered nurses, pharmacists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists,” said Gary Cutter, PhD, president of the CMSC. “Our offerings include beginner courses, advanced science sessions, rehab and mental health tracks, platform and poster sessions, and roundtables.”

A new study finds it pays to pay people to stop lighting up: Smokers were more likely to quit if they had an opportunity to gain rewards worth $600 than if they simply received free cessation aids or free e-cigarettes.

The wide majority of the more than 6,000 smokers in the randomized study didn’t quit despite offers of various incentives. All the same, “programs that offered financial incentives tripled the rates of smoking cessation, reduced employers’ costs per successful quit, as compared with programs that offered cessation aids alone, and yielded total costs that compared favorably with the costs of employing smokers,” the study authors wrote.

milosluz/istockphoto.com

Overall, 20% of the 6,006 participants logged onto the trial website, a sign that they were “engaged.” The number was highest in the free e-cigarette and reward groups (21%-23%) and lowest in the usual care group (16%).

The researchers focused on how many participants abstained from smoking – as confirmed by blood or urine test – for 6 months past the target quit date. The test data confirmed that just 1.3% of the total participants, 80 people, sustained cessation over 6 months.

Only 0.1% of the usual-care group sustained smoking cessation, and the number wasn’t much higher (0.5%) in the free cessation aids group.

One percent of those in the free e-cigarette group sustained cessation. However, the researchers noted there wasn’t a significant difference in the quit rates between the usual care, free cessation aid, and free e-cigarette groups.

“The observation of greater e-cigarette use in the free e-cigarette group than in the free cessation aids group, coupled with the absence of benefit of free e-cigarettes versus no intervention, supports the conclusion that offering free e-cigarettes does not promote smoking cessation,” they cautioned.

In the reward incentive and $600 redeemable-deposit groups, 2% and 2.9% of participants quit over a sustained period, respectively. Cessation rates in the $600 deposit group were superior to the free cessation aid group (P less than .001) and the free e-cigarette group (P = .008). Cessation rates in the incentive group were superior to those in the free cessation aid group (P = .006).

“Average costs per participant assigned to each intervention were lowest in the usual-care group ($0.82) and highest in the redeemable-deposit group ($100.96),” the researchers reported. “The overall cost of each program per participant who was abstinent for 6 months was lower in the rewards and redeemable-deposit groups than in the free e-cigarettes or free cessation aids groups.”

The study received grant support from the Vitality Institute. Most of the study authors reported no relevant disclosures. One author reported serving on the scientific advisory board of VAL Health, and another reported various grants and personal fees.

SOURCE: Halpern SD et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1715757.

A new study finds it pays to pay people to stop lighting up: Smokers were more likely to quit if they had an opportunity to gain rewards worth $600 than if they simply received free cessation aids or free e-cigarettes.

The wide majority of the more than 6,000 smokers in the randomized study didn’t quit despite offers of various incentives. All the same, “programs that offered financial incentives tripled the rates of smoking cessation, reduced employers’ costs per successful quit, as compared with programs that offered cessation aids alone, and yielded total costs that compared favorably with the costs of employing smokers,” the study authors wrote.

milosluz/istockphoto.com

Overall, 20% of the 6,006 participants logged onto the trial website, a sign that they were “engaged.” The number was highest in the free e-cigarette and reward groups (21%-23%) and lowest in the usual care group (16%).

The researchers focused on how many participants abstained from smoking – as confirmed by blood or urine test – for 6 months past the target quit date. The test data confirmed that just 1.3% of the total participants, 80 people, sustained cessation over 6 months.

Only 0.1% of the usual-care group sustained smoking cessation, and the number wasn’t much higher (0.5%) in the free cessation aids group.

One percent of those in the free e-cigarette group sustained cessation. However, the researchers noted there wasn’t a significant difference in the quit rates between the usual care, free cessation aid, and free e-cigarette groups.

“The observation of greater e-cigarette use in the free e-cigarette group than in the free cessation aids group, coupled with the absence of benefit of free e-cigarettes versus no intervention, supports the conclusion that offering free e-cigarettes does not promote smoking cessation,” they cautioned.

In the reward incentive and $600 redeemable-deposit groups, 2% and 2.9% of participants quit over a sustained period, respectively. Cessation rates in the $600 deposit group were superior to the free cessation aid group (P less than .001) and the free e-cigarette group (P = .008). Cessation rates in the incentive group were superior to those in the free cessation aid group (P = .006).

“Average costs per participant assigned to each intervention were lowest in the usual-care group ($0.82) and highest in the redeemable-deposit group ($100.96),” the researchers reported. “The overall cost of each program per participant who was abstinent for 6 months was lower in the rewards and redeemable-deposit groups than in the free e-cigarettes or free cessation aids groups.”

The study received grant support from the Vitality Institute. Most of the study authors reported no relevant disclosures. One author reported serving on the scientific advisory board of VAL Health, and another reported various grants and personal fees.

SOURCE: Halpern SD et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1715757.

A new study finds it pays to pay people to stop lighting up: Smokers were more likely to quit if they had an opportunity to gain rewards worth $600 than if they simply received free cessation aids or free e-cigarettes.

The wide majority of the more than 6,000 smokers in the randomized study didn’t quit despite offers of various incentives. All the same, “programs that offered financial incentives tripled the rates of smoking cessation, reduced employers’ costs per successful quit, as compared with programs that offered cessation aids alone, and yielded total costs that compared favorably with the costs of employing smokers,” the study authors wrote.

milosluz/istockphoto.com

Overall, 20% of the 6,006 participants logged onto the trial website, a sign that they were “engaged.” The number was highest in the free e-cigarette and reward groups (21%-23%) and lowest in the usual care group (16%).

The researchers focused on how many participants abstained from smoking – as confirmed by blood or urine test – for 6 months past the target quit date. The test data confirmed that just 1.3% of the total participants, 80 people, sustained cessation over 6 months.

Only 0.1% of the usual-care group sustained smoking cessation, and the number wasn’t much higher (0.5%) in the free cessation aids group.

One percent of those in the free e-cigarette group sustained cessation. However, the researchers noted there wasn’t a significant difference in the quit rates between the usual care, free cessation aid, and free e-cigarette groups.

“The observation of greater e-cigarette use in the free e-cigarette group than in the free cessation aids group, coupled with the absence of benefit of free e-cigarettes versus no intervention, supports the conclusion that offering free e-cigarettes does not promote smoking cessation,” they cautioned.

In the reward incentive and $600 redeemable-deposit groups, 2% and 2.9% of participants quit over a sustained period, respectively. Cessation rates in the $600 deposit group were superior to the free cessation aid group (P less than .001) and the free e-cigarette group (P = .008). Cessation rates in the incentive group were superior to those in the free cessation aid group (P = .006).

“Average costs per participant assigned to each intervention were lowest in the usual-care group ($0.82) and highest in the redeemable-deposit group ($100.96),” the researchers reported. “The overall cost of each program per participant who was abstinent for 6 months was lower in the rewards and redeemable-deposit groups than in the free e-cigarettes or free cessation aids groups.”

The study received grant support from the Vitality Institute. Most of the study authors reported no relevant disclosures. One author reported serving on the scientific advisory board of VAL Health, and another reported various grants and personal fees.

SOURCE: Halpern SD et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1715757.

SAN DIEGO – National guidelines for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma often are not followed, a new study showed, with fewer than one-third of patients receiving cancer-directed surgery.

Another 32% received no treatment, although that didn’t seem to have an impact on median months of survival.

Still, “there can be a wide variation in median survival time, depending on clinical factors and tumor characteristics,” said study coauthor Harmik Soukiasian, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “Given the variation in prognosis, it is quite astonishing that over 30% of MPM patients are not receiving any form of treatment. As clinicians armed with these data, we need to investigate why that is.”

Dr. Soukiasian presented the study findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

MPM, a rare cancer, is mainly linked to asbestos exposure. “MPM is almost always a fatal disease, and the prognosis can only be modestly influenced by oncological treatments,” according to the authors of guidelines released in 2013. “The diagnostic process can be complex, with highly specialized advice frequently required to arrive at a definite diagnosis. Treatment varies from therapeutic nihilism to radical combined-modality treatment approaches” (J Thorac Dis. 2013 Dec;5[6]:E254-E307).

Surgical resection is a controversial treatment for MPM, Dr. Soukiasian said. It is “based on the principle of macroscopic resection of solid tumor with adjuvant therapy to treat micrometastatic disease,” he explained. “Cancer-directed surgery for MPM is usually reserved for localized epithelial type histology and is associated with a 5-year survival rate of 15%.”

For the new study, the investigators tracked 3,834 patients in the National Cancer Database (2004-2014) diagnosed with MPM clinical stages I-III. Most had epithelioid MPM (69%), with sarcomatoid (17%) and mixed subtype (15%) making up the rest. They examined whether patient treatment complied with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which recommend surgery in resectable epithelioid MPM.

SOURCE: Espinoza-Mercado F et al. General Thoracic Surgery Simultaneous Scientific Session. Abstract 18.

SAN DIEGO – National guidelines for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma often are not followed, a new study showed, with fewer than one-third of patients receiving cancer-directed surgery.

Another 32% received no treatment, although that didn’t seem to have an impact on median months of survival.

Still, “there can be a wide variation in median survival time, depending on clinical factors and tumor characteristics,” said study coauthor Harmik Soukiasian, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “Given the variation in prognosis, it is quite astonishing that over 30% of MPM patients are not receiving any form of treatment. As clinicians armed with these data, we need to investigate why that is.”

Dr. Soukiasian presented the study findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

MPM, a rare cancer, is mainly linked to asbestos exposure. “MPM is almost always a fatal disease, and the prognosis can only be modestly influenced by oncological treatments,” according to the authors of guidelines released in 2013. “The diagnostic process can be complex, with highly specialized advice frequently required to arrive at a definite diagnosis. Treatment varies from therapeutic nihilism to radical combined-modality treatment approaches” (J Thorac Dis. 2013 Dec;5[6]:E254-E307).

Surgical resection is a controversial treatment for MPM, Dr. Soukiasian said. It is “based on the principle of macroscopic resection of solid tumor with adjuvant therapy to treat micrometastatic disease,” he explained. “Cancer-directed surgery for MPM is usually reserved for localized epithelial type histology and is associated with a 5-year survival rate of 15%.”

For the new study, the investigators tracked 3,834 patients in the National Cancer Database (2004-2014) diagnosed with MPM clinical stages I-III. Most had epithelioid MPM (69%), with sarcomatoid (17%) and mixed subtype (15%) making up the rest. They examined whether patient treatment complied with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which recommend surgery in resectable epithelioid MPM.

SOURCE: Espinoza-Mercado F et al. General Thoracic Surgery Simultaneous Scientific Session. Abstract 18.

SAN DIEGO – National guidelines for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma often are not followed, a new study showed, with fewer than one-third of patients receiving cancer-directed surgery.

Another 32% received no treatment, although that didn’t seem to have an impact on median months of survival.

Still, “there can be a wide variation in median survival time, depending on clinical factors and tumor characteristics,” said study coauthor Harmik Soukiasian, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “Given the variation in prognosis, it is quite astonishing that over 30% of MPM patients are not receiving any form of treatment. As clinicians armed with these data, we need to investigate why that is.”

Dr. Soukiasian presented the study findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

MPM, a rare cancer, is mainly linked to asbestos exposure. “MPM is almost always a fatal disease, and the prognosis can only be modestly influenced by oncological treatments,” according to the authors of guidelines released in 2013. “The diagnostic process can be complex, with highly specialized advice frequently required to arrive at a definite diagnosis. Treatment varies from therapeutic nihilism to radical combined-modality treatment approaches” (J Thorac Dis. 2013 Dec;5[6]:E254-E307).

Surgical resection is a controversial treatment for MPM, Dr. Soukiasian said. It is “based on the principle of macroscopic resection of solid tumor with adjuvant therapy to treat micrometastatic disease,” he explained. “Cancer-directed surgery for MPM is usually reserved for localized epithelial type histology and is associated with a 5-year survival rate of 15%.”

For the new study, the investigators tracked 3,834 patients in the National Cancer Database (2004-2014) diagnosed with MPM clinical stages I-III. Most had epithelioid MPM (69%), with sarcomatoid (17%) and mixed subtype (15%) making up the rest. They examined whether patient treatment complied with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which recommend surgery in resectable epithelioid MPM.

SOURCE: Espinoza-Mercado F et al. General Thoracic Surgery Simultaneous Scientific Session. Abstract 18.

SAN DIEGO – Delaying surgery in certain cases of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can mean patients will be upstaged and consequently have worse prognoses, a study suggests.

“There is significant upstaging with time from completion of clinical staging to surgical resection, with a 4% increase of upstaging per week for the overall study population,” said study coauthor Harmik J. Soukiasian, MD, FACS, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an interview. “Upstaging impacts lung cancer prognosis as more advanced stages portend to a poorer prognosis.”

SOURCE: Soukiasian HJ et al. AATS 2018, Abstract 67.

SAN DIEGO – Delaying surgery in certain cases of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can mean patients will be upstaged and consequently have worse prognoses, a study suggests.

“There is significant upstaging with time from completion of clinical staging to surgical resection, with a 4% increase of upstaging per week for the overall study population,” said study coauthor Harmik J. Soukiasian, MD, FACS, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an interview. “Upstaging impacts lung cancer prognosis as more advanced stages portend to a poorer prognosis.”

SOURCE: Soukiasian HJ et al. AATS 2018, Abstract 67.

SAN DIEGO – Delaying surgery in certain cases of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can mean patients will be upstaged and consequently have worse prognoses, a study suggests.

“There is significant upstaging with time from completion of clinical staging to surgical resection, with a 4% increase of upstaging per week for the overall study population,” said study coauthor Harmik J. Soukiasian, MD, FACS, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an interview. “Upstaging impacts lung cancer prognosis as more advanced stages portend to a poorer prognosis.”

SOURCE: Soukiasian HJ et al. AATS 2018, Abstract 67.