Federal Practitioner

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GlaxoSmithKline) with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab, for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that is mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR), as determined by an FDA-approved test or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The approval was based on GSK’s RUBY trial. Across 122 patients with dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, progression-free survival was 30.3 months in women randomly assigned to dostarlimab on a background of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by dostarlimab monotherapy, vs. 7.7 months among women randomly assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .0001), according to the FDA’s press release.

MMR/MSI tumor status was determined by local testing or by the Ventana MMR RxDx Panel when local testing was unavailable.

“Until now, chemotherapy alone has been the standard of care with many patients experiencing disease progression,” GSK executive Hesham Abdullah said in the company’s press release. The trial results “and today’s approval underscore our belief in the potential for Jemperli to transform cancer treatment as a backbone immuno-oncology therapy.”

Dostarlimab was already approved in the United States as monotherapy for adults with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed on or following a platinum-containing chemotherapy and is not a candidate for curative surgery or radiation. The latest approval means that the agent “is now indicated earlier in treatment in combination with chemotherapy,” GSK said.

Dostarlimab also carries an indication for dMMR recurrent or advanced solid tumors that have progressed on or following prior treatment when there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies such as hypothyroidism, nephritis with renal dysfunction, and skin adverse reactions. The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the Ruby trial were rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and hypertension.

The recommended dostarlimab dose is 500 mg every 3 weeks for 6 doses with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by 1,000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.

Drugs.com lists dostarlimab’s price at $11,712.66 for 500 mg/10 mL intravenous solution.

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

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to become long-term survivors of the disease now than they were 20 years ago, a new study found.

Researchers at the University of Oxford (England) conducted an observational study that examined case fatality rates for women with breast cancer and found that the prognosis for women has “improved substantially” over the past few decades. For women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer during the 1990s, the risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis was just over 14% on average. For women diagnosed during the 2010s, it was nearly 5% on average.

“The take-home message in our study is that it’s good news for women who are diagnosed with early breast cancer today because most of them can expect to become long-term cancer survivors, and so I think our results are reassuring,” said lead study author Carolyn Taylor, DPhil, a clinical oncologist from the Nuffield Department Of Population Health, University of Oxford.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

Although breast cancer survival has improved, recent estimates don’t incorporate detailed data on age, tumor size, tumor grade, and nodal and receptor status. In the current population-based study, researchers explored improvement in survival from early-stage breast cancer. They used nine patient and tumor characteristics as factors in their analysis.

The study is based on data from the National Cancer Registration for 512,447 women in England who were diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2015. Women were broken into four groups: those diagnosed during 1993-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2015.

The study focused on women who initially underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy as their first treatment. Data included age, tumor size, tumor grade, number of positive nodes, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. For women who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015, HER2 status was included. Data regarding recurrence, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and patients who were diagnosed with more than one cancer were not included.

The major finding: Among women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, the risk of dying decreased almost threefold between 1993 and 2015. The 5-year cumulative case fatality risk was 14.4% for women diagnosed in the 1990s (1993-1999) versus 4.9% for women diagnosed about 2 decades later (2010-2015).

Dr. Taylor and colleagues found that the case fatality rate was highest during the 5 years after diagnosis; within those years, the rates typically increased during the first 2 years, peaked during the third, and declined thereafter.

The 5-year risk of death, however, varied widely among women in the population. For most (62.8%) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, the case fatality risk was 3% or less; however, for a small subset of women (4.6%), the risk reached 20% or higher.

Patients with ER-negative tumors tended to have worse prognoses in the first decade following their diagnosis. Overall, higher tumor size and grade, more positive nodes, and older age tended to be associated with worse prognoses.

Overall, the annual case fatality rates decreased over time in nearly every patient group.

While Dr. Taylor said these findings are encouraging, she added that the investigators did not analyze why survival rates have improved over 2 decades.

“We didn’t explain how much of the improvement was due to advances treatments, improved screening rates, etc,” Dr. Taylor said. Another limitation is that data on recurrence were not available.

Kathy Miller, MD, who specializes in breast cancer at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the 5-year mark for survival is great news for some patients with breast cancer but that the time frame doesn’t apply to all.

While the risk of case fatality from breast cancer may be higher during the first 5 years after diagnosis, Dr. Miller said that is not the case for women with ER-positive breast cancer. In the study, the researchers highlighted this trend for ER status: before the 10-year mark, survival rates for women with ER-positive disease were better, but after the 10-year mark, those with ER-negative tumors seemed to fare slightly better.

“Many patients have heard this very arbitrary 5-year mark, and for patients with ER-positive disease, that 5-year mark has no meaning, because their risk in any given year is very low and it stays at that very low consistent level for at least 15 years, probably longer,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “I think a better way to think about this for ER-positive patients is that every day that goes by without a problem makes it a tiny bit less likely that you will ever have a problem.”

The authors took a similar view for the overall population, concluding that, “although deaths from breast cancer will continue to occur beyond this [5-year mark], the risk during each subsequent 5-year period is likely to be lower than during the first 5 years.”

The research was funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the University of Oxford. Some study authors received support for several of these institutions, but they reported no financial relationships with organizations that might have had an interest in the submitted work during the previous 3 years.

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

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to become long-term survivors of the disease now than they were 20 years ago, a new study found.

Researchers at the University of Oxford (England) conducted an observational study that examined case fatality rates for women with breast cancer and found that the prognosis for women has “improved substantially” over the past few decades. For women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer during the 1990s, the risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis was just over 14% on average. For women diagnosed during the 2010s, it was nearly 5% on average.

“The take-home message in our study is that it’s good news for women who are diagnosed with early breast cancer today because most of them can expect to become long-term cancer survivors, and so I think our results are reassuring,” said lead study author Carolyn Taylor, DPhil, a clinical oncologist from the Nuffield Department Of Population Health, University of Oxford.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

Although breast cancer survival has improved, recent estimates don’t incorporate detailed data on age, tumor size, tumor grade, and nodal and receptor status. In the current population-based study, researchers explored improvement in survival from early-stage breast cancer. They used nine patient and tumor characteristics as factors in their analysis.

The study is based on data from the National Cancer Registration for 512,447 women in England who were diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2015. Women were broken into four groups: those diagnosed during 1993-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2015.

The study focused on women who initially underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy as their first treatment. Data included age, tumor size, tumor grade, number of positive nodes, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. For women who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015, HER2 status was included. Data regarding recurrence, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and patients who were diagnosed with more than one cancer were not included.

The major finding: Among women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, the risk of dying decreased almost threefold between 1993 and 2015. The 5-year cumulative case fatality risk was 14.4% for women diagnosed in the 1990s (1993-1999) versus 4.9% for women diagnosed about 2 decades later (2010-2015).

Dr. Taylor and colleagues found that the case fatality rate was highest during the 5 years after diagnosis; within those years, the rates typically increased during the first 2 years, peaked during the third, and declined thereafter.

The 5-year risk of death, however, varied widely among women in the population. For most (62.8%) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, the case fatality risk was 3% or less; however, for a small subset of women (4.6%), the risk reached 20% or higher.

Patients with ER-negative tumors tended to have worse prognoses in the first decade following their diagnosis. Overall, higher tumor size and grade, more positive nodes, and older age tended to be associated with worse prognoses.

Overall, the annual case fatality rates decreased over time in nearly every patient group.

While Dr. Taylor said these findings are encouraging, she added that the investigators did not analyze why survival rates have improved over 2 decades.

“We didn’t explain how much of the improvement was due to advances treatments, improved screening rates, etc,” Dr. Taylor said. Another limitation is that data on recurrence were not available.

Kathy Miller, MD, who specializes in breast cancer at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the 5-year mark for survival is great news for some patients with breast cancer but that the time frame doesn’t apply to all.

While the risk of case fatality from breast cancer may be higher during the first 5 years after diagnosis, Dr. Miller said that is not the case for women with ER-positive breast cancer. In the study, the researchers highlighted this trend for ER status: before the 10-year mark, survival rates for women with ER-positive disease were better, but after the 10-year mark, those with ER-negative tumors seemed to fare slightly better.

“Many patients have heard this very arbitrary 5-year mark, and for patients with ER-positive disease, that 5-year mark has no meaning, because their risk in any given year is very low and it stays at that very low consistent level for at least 15 years, probably longer,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “I think a better way to think about this for ER-positive patients is that every day that goes by without a problem makes it a tiny bit less likely that you will ever have a problem.”

The authors took a similar view for the overall population, concluding that, “although deaths from breast cancer will continue to occur beyond this [5-year mark], the risk during each subsequent 5-year period is likely to be lower than during the first 5 years.”

The research was funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the University of Oxford. Some study authors received support for several of these institutions, but they reported no financial relationships with organizations that might have had an interest in the submitted work during the previous 3 years.

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

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to become long-term survivors of the disease now than they were 20 years ago, a new study found.

Researchers at the University of Oxford (England) conducted an observational study that examined case fatality rates for women with breast cancer and found that the prognosis for women has “improved substantially” over the past few decades. For women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer during the 1990s, the risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis was just over 14% on average. For women diagnosed during the 2010s, it was nearly 5% on average.

“The take-home message in our study is that it’s good news for women who are diagnosed with early breast cancer today because most of them can expect to become long-term cancer survivors, and so I think our results are reassuring,” said lead study author Carolyn Taylor, DPhil, a clinical oncologist from the Nuffield Department Of Population Health, University of Oxford.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

Although breast cancer survival has improved, recent estimates don’t incorporate detailed data on age, tumor size, tumor grade, and nodal and receptor status. In the current population-based study, researchers explored improvement in survival from early-stage breast cancer. They used nine patient and tumor characteristics as factors in their analysis.

The study is based on data from the National Cancer Registration for 512,447 women in England who were diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2015. Women were broken into four groups: those diagnosed during 1993-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2015.

The study focused on women who initially underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy as their first treatment. Data included age, tumor size, tumor grade, number of positive nodes, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. For women who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015, HER2 status was included. Data regarding recurrence, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and patients who were diagnosed with more than one cancer were not included.

The major finding: Among women diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, the risk of dying decreased almost threefold between 1993 and 2015. The 5-year cumulative case fatality risk was 14.4% for women diagnosed in the 1990s (1993-1999) versus 4.9% for women diagnosed about 2 decades later (2010-2015).

Dr. Taylor and colleagues found that the case fatality rate was highest during the 5 years after diagnosis; within those years, the rates typically increased during the first 2 years, peaked during the third, and declined thereafter.

The 5-year risk of death, however, varied widely among women in the population. For most (62.8%) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, the case fatality risk was 3% or less; however, for a small subset of women (4.6%), the risk reached 20% or higher.

Patients with ER-negative tumors tended to have worse prognoses in the first decade following their diagnosis. Overall, higher tumor size and grade, more positive nodes, and older age tended to be associated with worse prognoses.

Overall, the annual case fatality rates decreased over time in nearly every patient group.

While Dr. Taylor said these findings are encouraging, she added that the investigators did not analyze why survival rates have improved over 2 decades.

“We didn’t explain how much of the improvement was due to advances treatments, improved screening rates, etc,” Dr. Taylor said. Another limitation is that data on recurrence were not available.

Kathy Miller, MD, who specializes in breast cancer at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the 5-year mark for survival is great news for some patients with breast cancer but that the time frame doesn’t apply to all.

While the risk of case fatality from breast cancer may be higher during the first 5 years after diagnosis, Dr. Miller said that is not the case for women with ER-positive breast cancer. In the study, the researchers highlighted this trend for ER status: before the 10-year mark, survival rates for women with ER-positive disease were better, but after the 10-year mark, those with ER-negative tumors seemed to fare slightly better.

“Many patients have heard this very arbitrary 5-year mark, and for patients with ER-positive disease, that 5-year mark has no meaning, because their risk in any given year is very low and it stays at that very low consistent level for at least 15 years, probably longer,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “I think a better way to think about this for ER-positive patients is that every day that goes by without a problem makes it a tiny bit less likely that you will ever have a problem.”

The authors took a similar view for the overall population, concluding that, “although deaths from breast cancer will continue to occur beyond this [5-year mark], the risk during each subsequent 5-year period is likely to be lower than during the first 5 years.”

The research was funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the University of Oxford. Some study authors received support for several of these institutions, but they reported no financial relationships with organizations that might have had an interest in the submitted work during the previous 3 years.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I went to med school, we were taught to take a sexual history. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both? And that was it. We’re telling patients that sex is a vice, something that is dangerous and that you should feel bad about. But sex is how we’re all here and how we even continue as a species. We must get comfortable as doctors talking to our patients about sexual medicine.

What if we move away from sex being in the vice category – the part of the social history that’s the bad stuff you shouldn’t be doing? Maybe we should bring it into the review of systems.

As a very basic first step, I like to ask patients four things. As a sexual medicine doctor, I deal with these four things: libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain.

Why are these important? These are the things our patients really care about; 2.3 of every 1,000 people got divorced in 2021.

Libido. Women who have distressing low sexual desire have sex on average two and a half times per month. We call this mercy sex or duty sex. I don’t know what the half time per month looks like, but people genuinely care about desire and their doctors don’t really know that.

We have a biopsychosocial toolbox to help our patients. Let me give you an example: Antidepressants can have sexual side effects. Could there be medications in our toolbox that can help our patients? Of course there can, and there are. What about education or talk therapy? We should be asking our patients what they care about and why they care about it so we can help them achieve their quality-of-life goals.

Arousal. What about arousal? Did you know that erections are a marker of cardiovascular disease in men? We know this to be true for men, and I’m certain the research would be no different for women. We know that there are many biological causes for decrease in arousal, including sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. I can convince a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them it’s bad for their penis. We have to understand what our patients care about and then advise them on why we think we can help improve these issues.

Orgasm. How about orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you can orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you have questions about orgasm? About 15%-20% of women report having an orgasm disorder, and we rarely talk about this in an exam room. I’ve certainly never been asked, and everybody knows what I do for a living. Not to mention all the men that I and my colleagues see who have really distressing premature ejaculation or delayed orgasm. This is pathophysiology at its finest and most complex. It is so interesting, and we have so much to learn and understand about orgasm in general.

Pain. Finally, ask about pain. It seems obvious that we should be asking our patients about their pain, which includes pelvic pain, but oftentimes we avoid talking about private parts. Pain affects not just our patients, but also their partners and their families, when our patients can’t sit without discomfort, if they can’t go and perform the daily activities that bring them joy and belonging. We have to really work with our toolbox in a biopsychosocial manner to help our patients. I often use the incredible rehabilitation specialists called pelvic floor physical therapists.

Remember, we’re talking about libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Sex is important to us as a species. It’s important to our patients. Please consider enhancing your sexual history–taking skills and ask patients about their desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Ask nonjudgmental and open-ended questions. You actually may be the only doctor to ever do so.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I went to med school, we were taught to take a sexual history. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both? And that was it. We’re telling patients that sex is a vice, something that is dangerous and that you should feel bad about. But sex is how we’re all here and how we even continue as a species. We must get comfortable as doctors talking to our patients about sexual medicine.

What if we move away from sex being in the vice category – the part of the social history that’s the bad stuff you shouldn’t be doing? Maybe we should bring it into the review of systems.

As a very basic first step, I like to ask patients four things. As a sexual medicine doctor, I deal with these four things: libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain.

Why are these important? These are the things our patients really care about; 2.3 of every 1,000 people got divorced in 2021.

Libido. Women who have distressing low sexual desire have sex on average two and a half times per month. We call this mercy sex or duty sex. I don’t know what the half time per month looks like, but people genuinely care about desire and their doctors don’t really know that.

We have a biopsychosocial toolbox to help our patients. Let me give you an example: Antidepressants can have sexual side effects. Could there be medications in our toolbox that can help our patients? Of course there can, and there are. What about education or talk therapy? We should be asking our patients what they care about and why they care about it so we can help them achieve their quality-of-life goals.

Arousal. What about arousal? Did you know that erections are a marker of cardiovascular disease in men? We know this to be true for men, and I’m certain the research would be no different for women. We know that there are many biological causes for decrease in arousal, including sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. I can convince a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them it’s bad for their penis. We have to understand what our patients care about and then advise them on why we think we can help improve these issues.

Orgasm. How about orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you can orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you have questions about orgasm? About 15%-20% of women report having an orgasm disorder, and we rarely talk about this in an exam room. I’ve certainly never been asked, and everybody knows what I do for a living. Not to mention all the men that I and my colleagues see who have really distressing premature ejaculation or delayed orgasm. This is pathophysiology at its finest and most complex. It is so interesting, and we have so much to learn and understand about orgasm in general.

Pain. Finally, ask about pain. It seems obvious that we should be asking our patients about their pain, which includes pelvic pain, but oftentimes we avoid talking about private parts. Pain affects not just our patients, but also their partners and their families, when our patients can’t sit without discomfort, if they can’t go and perform the daily activities that bring them joy and belonging. We have to really work with our toolbox in a biopsychosocial manner to help our patients. I often use the incredible rehabilitation specialists called pelvic floor physical therapists.

Remember, we’re talking about libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Sex is important to us as a species. It’s important to our patients. Please consider enhancing your sexual history–taking skills and ask patients about their desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Ask nonjudgmental and open-ended questions. You actually may be the only doctor to ever do so.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I went to med school, we were taught to take a sexual history. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both? And that was it. We’re telling patients that sex is a vice, something that is dangerous and that you should feel bad about. But sex is how we’re all here and how we even continue as a species. We must get comfortable as doctors talking to our patients about sexual medicine.

What if we move away from sex being in the vice category – the part of the social history that’s the bad stuff you shouldn’t be doing? Maybe we should bring it into the review of systems.

As a very basic first step, I like to ask patients four things. As a sexual medicine doctor, I deal with these four things: libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain.

Why are these important? These are the things our patients really care about; 2.3 of every 1,000 people got divorced in 2021.

Libido. Women who have distressing low sexual desire have sex on average two and a half times per month. We call this mercy sex or duty sex. I don’t know what the half time per month looks like, but people genuinely care about desire and their doctors don’t really know that.

We have a biopsychosocial toolbox to help our patients. Let me give you an example: Antidepressants can have sexual side effects. Could there be medications in our toolbox that can help our patients? Of course there can, and there are. What about education or talk therapy? We should be asking our patients what they care about and why they care about it so we can help them achieve their quality-of-life goals.

Arousal. What about arousal? Did you know that erections are a marker of cardiovascular disease in men? We know this to be true for men, and I’m certain the research would be no different for women. We know that there are many biological causes for decrease in arousal, including sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. I can convince a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them it’s bad for their penis. We have to understand what our patients care about and then advise them on why we think we can help improve these issues.

Orgasm. How about orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you can orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you have questions about orgasm? About 15%-20% of women report having an orgasm disorder, and we rarely talk about this in an exam room. I’ve certainly never been asked, and everybody knows what I do for a living. Not to mention all the men that I and my colleagues see who have really distressing premature ejaculation or delayed orgasm. This is pathophysiology at its finest and most complex. It is so interesting, and we have so much to learn and understand about orgasm in general.

Pain. Finally, ask about pain. It seems obvious that we should be asking our patients about their pain, which includes pelvic pain, but oftentimes we avoid talking about private parts. Pain affects not just our patients, but also their partners and their families, when our patients can’t sit without discomfort, if they can’t go and perform the daily activities that bring them joy and belonging. We have to really work with our toolbox in a biopsychosocial manner to help our patients. I often use the incredible rehabilitation specialists called pelvic floor physical therapists.

Remember, we’re talking about libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Sex is important to us as a species. It’s important to our patients. Please consider enhancing your sexual history–taking skills and ask patients about their desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Ask nonjudgmental and open-ended questions. You actually may be the only doctor to ever do so.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not a strong surrogate for overall survival in randomized trials of adjuvant immunotherapy for cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• FDA approvals in the adjuvant setting for cancer immunotherapy are increasingly based on trials that use RFS as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival, largely because such a design allows for smaller, speedier trials.
• To test the validity of using RFS as a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 15 phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant CTLA4 and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 blockers for melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and other tumors.
• The team used weighted regression at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for overall survival.
• The strength of the association was quantified by weighted coefficients of determination (R²)12Dante MT Stdplz make sure all mentions of R’2’ are superscript, with a strong correlation considered to be R² of 0.7 or higher.
• If there were strong correlations at both the arm and trial levels, RFS would be considered a robust surrogate endpoint for overall survival; however, if one of the correlations at the arm or trial level was not strong, RFS would not be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between 2-year RFS and 3-year overall survival (R², 0.58) and between 3-year RFS and 5-year overall survival (R², 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-.00).
• At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and overall survival (R², 0.63).
• The findings were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses that were based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our meta-analysis failed to find a significantly strong association between RFS and OS in RCTs of adjuvant immunotherapy,” the authors concluded. “RFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in this clinical context.” Instead, the finding indicates that overall survival is “the ideal primary endpoint” in this setting.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yuanfang Li, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

• Correlations were calculated from a relatively limited number of RCTs that involved different types of cancer, and overall survival data were not fully mature in some of the trials.
• The analysis did not include patient-level data.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others.
• The investigators had no disclosures.

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

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

People who do 4-5 minutes of vigorous physical activity daily can reduce their cancer risk by up to 32%, a new study published in  JAMA Oncology says.

Researchers at the University of Sydney studied data from wearable fitness devices worn by more than 22,000 “non-exercisers,” then examined their health records for 6 or 7 years. 

The scientists found that people who did 4-5 minutes of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” (VILPA) had a “substantially” lower cancer risk than people who did no VILPA. 

Examples of VILPA are vigorous housework, carrying heavy shopping bags around the grocery store, bursts of power walking, and playing high-energy games with children. The activities could occur in 1-minute bursts, instead of all at once.

Getty Images/Kentaroo Tryman

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

GE HealthCare is recalling 7,559 TruSignal arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) sensors because of problems that may reduce defibrillation energy, expose patients to unintended voltage, or give inaccurate readings.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type. The company has not received any reports of patient injury or deaths as a result of these issues.*

The recall includes the TruSignal Adult Pediatric Sensor, TruSignal AllFit Sensor, TruSignal Sensitive Skin Sensor, TruSignal Wrap Sensor, TruSignal Ear Sensor, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor with GE Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, and TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Ohmeda Connector.

The sensors were distributed in the United States from Jan. 1, 2021, to March 4, 2023.

According to the recall notice, the malfunctioning sensors “may reduce the amount of energy sent to the heart during defibrillation without any notification to the care provider, which could prevent delivery of lifesaving therapy in a critical situation.

“This issue is most hazardous to hospitalized patients who may need defibrillation for cardiac arrest. Affected sensors may also unintentionally expose patients to electrical currents from other sources or may provide inaccurate measurements of SpO₂, which can impact treatment decisions,” the notice warns.

In an urgent device correction letter sent to health care professionals in May, GE HealthCare recommends that health care professionals do the following:

• Use an alternate method for SpO₂ monitoring, including TruSignal sensors not impacted or an alternate SpO₂ device.
• If alternate methods are not available, use affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors as long as they have not been saturated with fluids.
• If defibrillation is necessary when affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors are being used, remove the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor, defibrillate per hospital protocol, and reattach the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor after defibrillation is no longer needed.
• For Adult/Pediatric SpO₂ sensors, confirm that material does not cover the emitter or detector before using.
• Discard the sensor and use another sensor if any additional material is present.
• Make sure all potential users are made aware of this safety notification and the recommended actions, and retain this notice.

Customers are also asked to complete and return the acknowledgment form attached to the notice to Recall.39004@ge.com.

For questions or concerns about this recall, contact GE HealthCare Service at 1-800-437-1171 or a local service representative.

Health care professionals can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

*Correction, 8/3/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the reports received by the company.

GE HealthCare is recalling 7,559 TruSignal arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) sensors because of problems that may reduce defibrillation energy, expose patients to unintended voltage, or give inaccurate readings.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type. The company has not received any reports of patient injury or deaths as a result of these issues.*

The recall includes the TruSignal Adult Pediatric Sensor, TruSignal AllFit Sensor, TruSignal Sensitive Skin Sensor, TruSignal Wrap Sensor, TruSignal Ear Sensor, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor with GE Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, and TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Ohmeda Connector.

The sensors were distributed in the United States from Jan. 1, 2021, to March 4, 2023.

According to the recall notice, the malfunctioning sensors “may reduce the amount of energy sent to the heart during defibrillation without any notification to the care provider, which could prevent delivery of lifesaving therapy in a critical situation.

“This issue is most hazardous to hospitalized patients who may need defibrillation for cardiac arrest. Affected sensors may also unintentionally expose patients to electrical currents from other sources or may provide inaccurate measurements of SpO₂, which can impact treatment decisions,” the notice warns.

In an urgent device correction letter sent to health care professionals in May, GE HealthCare recommends that health care professionals do the following:

• Use an alternate method for SpO₂ monitoring, including TruSignal sensors not impacted or an alternate SpO₂ device.
• If alternate methods are not available, use affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors as long as they have not been saturated with fluids.
• If defibrillation is necessary when affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors are being used, remove the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor, defibrillate per hospital protocol, and reattach the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor after defibrillation is no longer needed.
• For Adult/Pediatric SpO₂ sensors, confirm that material does not cover the emitter or detector before using.
• Discard the sensor and use another sensor if any additional material is present.
• Make sure all potential users are made aware of this safety notification and the recommended actions, and retain this notice.

Customers are also asked to complete and return the acknowledgment form attached to the notice to Recall.39004@ge.com.

For questions or concerns about this recall, contact GE HealthCare Service at 1-800-437-1171 or a local service representative.

Health care professionals can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

*Correction, 8/3/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the reports received by the company.

GE HealthCare is recalling 7,559 TruSignal arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) sensors because of problems that may reduce defibrillation energy, expose patients to unintended voltage, or give inaccurate readings.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type. The company has not received any reports of patient injury or deaths as a result of these issues.*

The recall includes the TruSignal Adult Pediatric Sensor, TruSignal AllFit Sensor, TruSignal Sensitive Skin Sensor, TruSignal Wrap Sensor, TruSignal Ear Sensor, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor with GE Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Datex Connector, and TruSignal Integrated Ear Sensor With Ohmeda Connector.

The sensors were distributed in the United States from Jan. 1, 2021, to March 4, 2023.

According to the recall notice, the malfunctioning sensors “may reduce the amount of energy sent to the heart during defibrillation without any notification to the care provider, which could prevent delivery of lifesaving therapy in a critical situation.

“This issue is most hazardous to hospitalized patients who may need defibrillation for cardiac arrest. Affected sensors may also unintentionally expose patients to electrical currents from other sources or may provide inaccurate measurements of SpO₂, which can impact treatment decisions,” the notice warns.

In an urgent device correction letter sent to health care professionals in May, GE HealthCare recommends that health care professionals do the following:

• Use an alternate method for SpO₂ monitoring, including TruSignal sensors not impacted or an alternate SpO₂ device.
• If alternate methods are not available, use affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors as long as they have not been saturated with fluids.
• If defibrillation is necessary when affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensors are being used, remove the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor, defibrillate per hospital protocol, and reattach the affected TruSignal SpO₂ sensor after defibrillation is no longer needed.
• For Adult/Pediatric SpO₂ sensors, confirm that material does not cover the emitter or detector before using.
• Discard the sensor and use another sensor if any additional material is present.
• Make sure all potential users are made aware of this safety notification and the recommended actions, and retain this notice.

Customers are also asked to complete and return the acknowledgment form attached to the notice to Recall.39004@ge.com.

For questions or concerns about this recall, contact GE HealthCare Service at 1-800-437-1171 or a local service representative.

Health care professionals can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

*Correction, 8/3/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the reports received by the company.