Federal Practitioner

On May 24, the news outlet ProPublica published a scathing investigation of Jeffery Dormu, DO, said to have performed hundreds of “medically unnecessary and invasive vascular procedures” in his Laurel, Md. office, putting patients’ limbs and lives at risk.

On July 15, The New York Times published a broader-based investigation of several vascular specialists said to have performed “risky” procedures on patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who subsequently had to have amputations, or died. The focus was mainly on Michigan-based interventional cardiologist Jihad Mustapha, MD.

This follows a 2019 analysis of Medicare claims data that identified outlier physicians with a high early intervention rate for patients newly diagnosed with claudication. According to the American Heart Association statistics, PAD affects approximately 8.5 million U.S. adults age 40 and older (some claim that’s an underestimate); most cases don’t require invasive treatment.

Are the ProPublica and Times stories emblematic of the field at large or a case of a few rogue doctors, and did changes in reimbursement and support from device manufacturers exacerbate the problem?

Responding to the Times’ revelations, Joseph L. Mills, MD, president of the Society for Vascular Surgery, wrote on the society’s website: “The overwhelming majority of vascular surgeons, and a vast majority of other specialists that receive some training and play a role in the care of vascular patients, including those trained in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology are providing high-quality, evidence-based care with safety and the best patient outcomes in mind.

“This is a complex issue that requires the examination not only of the events detailed in this story ... but of the underlying health care economic, legal and regulatory policies that created fertile soil for this behavior to germinate and take root.”
 

‘A few bad apples’

“I think it’s a case of a few bad apples,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “In general, I think physicians who take care of patients with vascular issues are trying to do the right thing. I think all of us who take care of patients with vascular disease see patients who are very, very complex, and there are going to be some procedures that have complications.

“Without knowing the clinical details, it’s hard to know whether the procedures described in the articles were overuse or unnecessary, or exactly what led to the amputations,” he said. “All we know is that these physicians are outliers in terms of the number of procedures they were billing for.

“But although correlation is not causation, it certainly is cause for concern because you would expect that the use of procedures for specific indications would fall within a certain range,” he added.
 

Lifestyle changes first

PAD is often asymptomatic or mild, making it difficult to diagnose. Revascularization procedures usually are reserved for the 5%-8% of patients at risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) or those in whom the cornerstones of PAD treatment – lifestyle changes and, if needed, medication – fail.

Revascularization options include balloon angioplasty or stent placement; atherectomy to remove plaques from the artery; or bypass surgery if a long portion of a leg artery is completely blocked. All carry a risk of long-term adverse outcomes, but the rates are highest for atherectomy.

Lifestyle changes include regular exercise, following a healthy diet, quitting smoking, and controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. When PAD continues or progresses despite these modifications, medications such as antiplatelet agents, antihypertensives, and/or lipid-lowering drugs may be prescribed.
 

‘Medically unnecessary’

According to the latest American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline on managing patients with lower-extremity PAD, patients should be selected for revascularization based on symptom severity.

Factors to consider include a significant disability as assessed by the patient, and adequacy of response to medical and structured exercise therapy.

There’s the rub regarding the clinicians investigated in the Times and ProPublica. Many patients, apparently, were not encouraged to make lifestyle changes, nor did they receive medication. Instead, they were advised from the get-go to undergo invasive procedures, and often multiple times. Underuse of prevention and lifestyle counseling n the management of PAD has long been a concern.

Furthermore, in at least some cases, patients without any symptoms were encouraged to be screened for blockages that were then treated invasively, according to the Times.

Dr. Dormu, as highlighted in ProPublica, positioned his practice as “life and limb saving.” Yet, in investigative findings that led to a suspension of Dr. Dormu’s license to practice medicine in Maryland, peer reviewers expressed concern regarding his repeated use of invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, exposing patients to “potential risks such as bleeding, infection, blood vessel injuries which could acutely or chronically worsen the patient’s circulation, and limb loss.”

The peer reviewers concurred that Dr. Dormu failed to use conservative management techniques to address the patients’ vascular complaints before resorting to invasive procedures.

Dr. Mustapha is described in the Times as a “high-volume” atherectomy provider. From 2017 to 2021, about half of Medicare’s atherectomy payments – $1.4 billion – went to 200 high-volume providers, with Dr. Mustapha near the top of the list.

Some of Dr. Mustapha’s patients underwent multiple procedures said to help prevent leg amputation, but their legs were amputated anyway, possibly because of the multiple atherectomies, according to the Times.

Judith Lin, MD, MBA, who treated some of Dr. Mustapha’s former patients, was among those who complained about his practice to Michigan’s licensing board. Some of the patients she treated needed amputations; others needed to have leftover wires extracted from their legs.

In 2020, the board investigated Dr. Lin’s complaint and referred it to Michigan’s attorney general, who brought a disciplinary action against Dr. Mustapha. An expert hired by the state to review eight patient cases concluded that Dr. Mustapha’s practice “was characterized by overtreatment and poor documentation.” In some cases, the expert wrote, “unnecessary procedures hastened amputations.”

The statement issued by Dr. Mills, the president of SVS, noted that the society’s practice guideline proposes a threshold of at least 2 years of likely durability for an intervention performed for claudication.

“The growing frequency of multiple, repeated procedures [is] emblematic of poor patient selection and inadequate durability of the chosen procedure, leading to a vicious cycle of repetitive interventions that is not only costly, but also dangerous,” he wrote.
 

Financial incentives to blame?

In 2008, Medicare created incentives for physicians to perform vascular procedures in offices rather than hospitals, in an effort to reduce medical costs, according to both investigative articles. But the effort backfired.

Before the changes, an office provider inserting a stent could make about $1,700 from Medicare; deploying a balloon could bring in roughly $3,800. By 2011, the payments rose to about $6,400 and $4,800, respectively.

Office-based atherectomies soared when, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing $13,500 per procedure, as opposed to roughly $11,450 in a hospital. Atherectomies increased by 60% from 2011 to 2014, and Medicare’s overall costs for peripheral vascular treatments climbed by nearly half a billion dollars.

“The government is really to blame for setting these tremendously high reimbursement values without looking into whether these procedures are helping people or are just worthless procedures or, in fact, are hurting people,” Dipankar Mukherjee, MD, a vascular surgeon and chief of vascular surgery at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital, said in ProPublica.

The result, noted Dr. Rao, is that “there can be perverse or nefarious incentives for doing these procedures. People are incentivized by reimbursement to do something that really falls in the area of clinical judgment and guidelines.”

Major incentives also come from device manufacturers, who often reward physicians who do the most vascular procedures with payments for consulting and other services, according to the Times. In addition, these companies lend money to help physicians or their clinics to finance the purchase of equipment used to perform the procedures.

“Vascular medicine now is the frontier of the Wild West,” Marty Makary, MD, MPH, a professor of surgery and health care quality researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told ProPublica. “People are flying blind walking into the clinics of these doctors with egregious practice patterns, and we know that their pattern is indefensible.”

Recognizing that the situation posed a threat to patients and also damaged the credibility of his specialty, Kim J. Hodgson, MD, a former SVS president, told attendees at the 2021 annual meeting of the SVS, “Somebody has to address what should never have been allowed to get to this level of threat to us and our patients in the first place. We can play whack-a-mole every time the bad actors surface until the cows come home, but that leaves a trail of harmed patients and wasted resources.”

Dr. Hodgson described atherectomy as “a procedure that many believe provides no demonstrable value whatsoever to the patient” and challenged those who disagree to prove it.
 

Multidisciplinary teams needed

Other experts believe there are times that revascularization procedures, including atherectomy, are appropriate. However, the majority of patients with PAD do not require a procedure, Soo Hyun (Esther) Kim, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Atrium Health Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. In fact, “many patients do not even know they have leg artery blockages.”

Invasive procedures may well be appropriate for patients with severe PAD, especially those with CLTI, and disparities may be keeping those who truly need such interventions – or for whom they may be at least considered – from accessing them. If PAD is not diagnosed and treated in a timely way, Dr. Kim said, those individuals “do indeed lose their limbs.”

Multidisciplinary teams can help, Dr. Kim said. “Specialists from multiple different training backgrounds [can] take good care of patients with PAD,” she said. This is important when access to a particular type of specialist is limited, and because patients with PAD often have complex medical problems that can benefit from a team approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement heart teams and complex coronary disease heart teams are two examples, Dr. Kim noted. “When a high-stakes procedure is being considered, the patient’s case is reviewed by multiple stakeholders to ensure appropriateness of the procedure and collaboratively evaluate risk.”

Dr. Rao also emphasized a team approach. “PAD does not belong to a single specialty,” he said. The revelations from the Times, ProPublica, and other sources “point to the fact that we all – cardiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists – should start thinking about how best to police ourselves and also account for the variation in clinical judgment.”

Use of a multidisciplinary team is a “guideline-recommended approach” for coronary artery revascularization, he said, “I think the same should apply for PAD.”

PAD is a sign of systemic atherosclerosis, Dr. Kim noted. “The treatment of PAD includes addressing leg pain and wounds with procedures, but the interventions that will keep people alive are the medications we use to prevent heart attack and stroke. Patients with PAD need to understand that treatment is much more than opening up a blockage in the leg.”

Dr. Rao and Dr. Kim disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

On May 24, the news outlet ProPublica published a scathing investigation of Jeffery Dormu, DO, said to have performed hundreds of “medically unnecessary and invasive vascular procedures” in his Laurel, Md. office, putting patients’ limbs and lives at risk.

On July 15, The New York Times published a broader-based investigation of several vascular specialists said to have performed “risky” procedures on patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who subsequently had to have amputations, or died. The focus was mainly on Michigan-based interventional cardiologist Jihad Mustapha, MD.

This follows a 2019 analysis of Medicare claims data that identified outlier physicians with a high early intervention rate for patients newly diagnosed with claudication. According to the American Heart Association statistics, PAD affects approximately 8.5 million U.S. adults age 40 and older (some claim that’s an underestimate); most cases don’t require invasive treatment.

Are the ProPublica and Times stories emblematic of the field at large or a case of a few rogue doctors, and did changes in reimbursement and support from device manufacturers exacerbate the problem?

Responding to the Times’ revelations, Joseph L. Mills, MD, president of the Society for Vascular Surgery, wrote on the society’s website: “The overwhelming majority of vascular surgeons, and a vast majority of other specialists that receive some training and play a role in the care of vascular patients, including those trained in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology are providing high-quality, evidence-based care with safety and the best patient outcomes in mind.

“This is a complex issue that requires the examination not only of the events detailed in this story ... but of the underlying health care economic, legal and regulatory policies that created fertile soil for this behavior to germinate and take root.”
 

‘A few bad apples’

“I think it’s a case of a few bad apples,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “In general, I think physicians who take care of patients with vascular issues are trying to do the right thing. I think all of us who take care of patients with vascular disease see patients who are very, very complex, and there are going to be some procedures that have complications.

“Without knowing the clinical details, it’s hard to know whether the procedures described in the articles were overuse or unnecessary, or exactly what led to the amputations,” he said. “All we know is that these physicians are outliers in terms of the number of procedures they were billing for.

“But although correlation is not causation, it certainly is cause for concern because you would expect that the use of procedures for specific indications would fall within a certain range,” he added.
 

Lifestyle changes first

PAD is often asymptomatic or mild, making it difficult to diagnose. Revascularization procedures usually are reserved for the 5%-8% of patients at risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) or those in whom the cornerstones of PAD treatment – lifestyle changes and, if needed, medication – fail.

Revascularization options include balloon angioplasty or stent placement; atherectomy to remove plaques from the artery; or bypass surgery if a long portion of a leg artery is completely blocked. All carry a risk of long-term adverse outcomes, but the rates are highest for atherectomy.

Lifestyle changes include regular exercise, following a healthy diet, quitting smoking, and controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. When PAD continues or progresses despite these modifications, medications such as antiplatelet agents, antihypertensives, and/or lipid-lowering drugs may be prescribed.
 

‘Medically unnecessary’

According to the latest American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline on managing patients with lower-extremity PAD, patients should be selected for revascularization based on symptom severity.

Factors to consider include a significant disability as assessed by the patient, and adequacy of response to medical and structured exercise therapy.

There’s the rub regarding the clinicians investigated in the Times and ProPublica. Many patients, apparently, were not encouraged to make lifestyle changes, nor did they receive medication. Instead, they were advised from the get-go to undergo invasive procedures, and often multiple times. Underuse of prevention and lifestyle counseling n the management of PAD has long been a concern.

Furthermore, in at least some cases, patients without any symptoms were encouraged to be screened for blockages that were then treated invasively, according to the Times.

Dr. Dormu, as highlighted in ProPublica, positioned his practice as “life and limb saving.” Yet, in investigative findings that led to a suspension of Dr. Dormu’s license to practice medicine in Maryland, peer reviewers expressed concern regarding his repeated use of invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, exposing patients to “potential risks such as bleeding, infection, blood vessel injuries which could acutely or chronically worsen the patient’s circulation, and limb loss.”

The peer reviewers concurred that Dr. Dormu failed to use conservative management techniques to address the patients’ vascular complaints before resorting to invasive procedures.

Dr. Mustapha is described in the Times as a “high-volume” atherectomy provider. From 2017 to 2021, about half of Medicare’s atherectomy payments – $1.4 billion – went to 200 high-volume providers, with Dr. Mustapha near the top of the list.

Some of Dr. Mustapha’s patients underwent multiple procedures said to help prevent leg amputation, but their legs were amputated anyway, possibly because of the multiple atherectomies, according to the Times.

Judith Lin, MD, MBA, who treated some of Dr. Mustapha’s former patients, was among those who complained about his practice to Michigan’s licensing board. Some of the patients she treated needed amputations; others needed to have leftover wires extracted from their legs.

In 2020, the board investigated Dr. Lin’s complaint and referred it to Michigan’s attorney general, who brought a disciplinary action against Dr. Mustapha. An expert hired by the state to review eight patient cases concluded that Dr. Mustapha’s practice “was characterized by overtreatment and poor documentation.” In some cases, the expert wrote, “unnecessary procedures hastened amputations.”

The statement issued by Dr. Mills, the president of SVS, noted that the society’s practice guideline proposes a threshold of at least 2 years of likely durability for an intervention performed for claudication.

“The growing frequency of multiple, repeated procedures [is] emblematic of poor patient selection and inadequate durability of the chosen procedure, leading to a vicious cycle of repetitive interventions that is not only costly, but also dangerous,” he wrote.
 

Financial incentives to blame?

In 2008, Medicare created incentives for physicians to perform vascular procedures in offices rather than hospitals, in an effort to reduce medical costs, according to both investigative articles. But the effort backfired.

Before the changes, an office provider inserting a stent could make about $1,700 from Medicare; deploying a balloon could bring in roughly $3,800. By 2011, the payments rose to about $6,400 and $4,800, respectively.

Office-based atherectomies soared when, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing $13,500 per procedure, as opposed to roughly $11,450 in a hospital. Atherectomies increased by 60% from 2011 to 2014, and Medicare’s overall costs for peripheral vascular treatments climbed by nearly half a billion dollars.

“The government is really to blame for setting these tremendously high reimbursement values without looking into whether these procedures are helping people or are just worthless procedures or, in fact, are hurting people,” Dipankar Mukherjee, MD, a vascular surgeon and chief of vascular surgery at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital, said in ProPublica.

The result, noted Dr. Rao, is that “there can be perverse or nefarious incentives for doing these procedures. People are incentivized by reimbursement to do something that really falls in the area of clinical judgment and guidelines.”

Major incentives also come from device manufacturers, who often reward physicians who do the most vascular procedures with payments for consulting and other services, according to the Times. In addition, these companies lend money to help physicians or their clinics to finance the purchase of equipment used to perform the procedures.

“Vascular medicine now is the frontier of the Wild West,” Marty Makary, MD, MPH, a professor of surgery and health care quality researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told ProPublica. “People are flying blind walking into the clinics of these doctors with egregious practice patterns, and we know that their pattern is indefensible.”

Recognizing that the situation posed a threat to patients and also damaged the credibility of his specialty, Kim J. Hodgson, MD, a former SVS president, told attendees at the 2021 annual meeting of the SVS, “Somebody has to address what should never have been allowed to get to this level of threat to us and our patients in the first place. We can play whack-a-mole every time the bad actors surface until the cows come home, but that leaves a trail of harmed patients and wasted resources.”

Dr. Hodgson described atherectomy as “a procedure that many believe provides no demonstrable value whatsoever to the patient” and challenged those who disagree to prove it.
 

Multidisciplinary teams needed

Other experts believe there are times that revascularization procedures, including atherectomy, are appropriate. However, the majority of patients with PAD do not require a procedure, Soo Hyun (Esther) Kim, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Atrium Health Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. In fact, “many patients do not even know they have leg artery blockages.”

Invasive procedures may well be appropriate for patients with severe PAD, especially those with CLTI, and disparities may be keeping those who truly need such interventions – or for whom they may be at least considered – from accessing them. If PAD is not diagnosed and treated in a timely way, Dr. Kim said, those individuals “do indeed lose their limbs.”

Multidisciplinary teams can help, Dr. Kim said. “Specialists from multiple different training backgrounds [can] take good care of patients with PAD,” she said. This is important when access to a particular type of specialist is limited, and because patients with PAD often have complex medical problems that can benefit from a team approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement heart teams and complex coronary disease heart teams are two examples, Dr. Kim noted. “When a high-stakes procedure is being considered, the patient’s case is reviewed by multiple stakeholders to ensure appropriateness of the procedure and collaboratively evaluate risk.”

Dr. Rao also emphasized a team approach. “PAD does not belong to a single specialty,” he said. The revelations from the Times, ProPublica, and other sources “point to the fact that we all – cardiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists – should start thinking about how best to police ourselves and also account for the variation in clinical judgment.”

Use of a multidisciplinary team is a “guideline-recommended approach” for coronary artery revascularization, he said, “I think the same should apply for PAD.”

PAD is a sign of systemic atherosclerosis, Dr. Kim noted. “The treatment of PAD includes addressing leg pain and wounds with procedures, but the interventions that will keep people alive are the medications we use to prevent heart attack and stroke. Patients with PAD need to understand that treatment is much more than opening up a blockage in the leg.”

Dr. Rao and Dr. Kim disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

On May 24, the news outlet ProPublica published a scathing investigation of Jeffery Dormu, DO, said to have performed hundreds of “medically unnecessary and invasive vascular procedures” in his Laurel, Md. office, putting patients’ limbs and lives at risk.

On July 15, The New York Times published a broader-based investigation of several vascular specialists said to have performed “risky” procedures on patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who subsequently had to have amputations, or died. The focus was mainly on Michigan-based interventional cardiologist Jihad Mustapha, MD.

This follows a 2019 analysis of Medicare claims data that identified outlier physicians with a high early intervention rate for patients newly diagnosed with claudication. According to the American Heart Association statistics, PAD affects approximately 8.5 million U.S. adults age 40 and older (some claim that’s an underestimate); most cases don’t require invasive treatment.

Are the ProPublica and Times stories emblematic of the field at large or a case of a few rogue doctors, and did changes in reimbursement and support from device manufacturers exacerbate the problem?

Responding to the Times’ revelations, Joseph L. Mills, MD, president of the Society for Vascular Surgery, wrote on the society’s website: “The overwhelming majority of vascular surgeons, and a vast majority of other specialists that receive some training and play a role in the care of vascular patients, including those trained in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology are providing high-quality, evidence-based care with safety and the best patient outcomes in mind.

“This is a complex issue that requires the examination not only of the events detailed in this story ... but of the underlying health care economic, legal and regulatory policies that created fertile soil for this behavior to germinate and take root.”
 

‘A few bad apples’

“I think it’s a case of a few bad apples,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “In general, I think physicians who take care of patients with vascular issues are trying to do the right thing. I think all of us who take care of patients with vascular disease see patients who are very, very complex, and there are going to be some procedures that have complications.

“Without knowing the clinical details, it’s hard to know whether the procedures described in the articles were overuse or unnecessary, or exactly what led to the amputations,” he said. “All we know is that these physicians are outliers in terms of the number of procedures they were billing for.

“But although correlation is not causation, it certainly is cause for concern because you would expect that the use of procedures for specific indications would fall within a certain range,” he added.
 

Lifestyle changes first

PAD is often asymptomatic or mild, making it difficult to diagnose. Revascularization procedures usually are reserved for the 5%-8% of patients at risk for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) or those in whom the cornerstones of PAD treatment – lifestyle changes and, if needed, medication – fail.

Revascularization options include balloon angioplasty or stent placement; atherectomy to remove plaques from the artery; or bypass surgery if a long portion of a leg artery is completely blocked. All carry a risk of long-term adverse outcomes, but the rates are highest for atherectomy.

Lifestyle changes include regular exercise, following a healthy diet, quitting smoking, and controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. When PAD continues or progresses despite these modifications, medications such as antiplatelet agents, antihypertensives, and/or lipid-lowering drugs may be prescribed.
 

‘Medically unnecessary’

According to the latest American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline on managing patients with lower-extremity PAD, patients should be selected for revascularization based on symptom severity.

Factors to consider include a significant disability as assessed by the patient, and adequacy of response to medical and structured exercise therapy.

There’s the rub regarding the clinicians investigated in the Times and ProPublica. Many patients, apparently, were not encouraged to make lifestyle changes, nor did they receive medication. Instead, they were advised from the get-go to undergo invasive procedures, and often multiple times. Underuse of prevention and lifestyle counseling n the management of PAD has long been a concern.

Furthermore, in at least some cases, patients without any symptoms were encouraged to be screened for blockages that were then treated invasively, according to the Times.

Dr. Dormu, as highlighted in ProPublica, positioned his practice as “life and limb saving.” Yet, in investigative findings that led to a suspension of Dr. Dormu’s license to practice medicine in Maryland, peer reviewers expressed concern regarding his repeated use of invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, exposing patients to “potential risks such as bleeding, infection, blood vessel injuries which could acutely or chronically worsen the patient’s circulation, and limb loss.”

The peer reviewers concurred that Dr. Dormu failed to use conservative management techniques to address the patients’ vascular complaints before resorting to invasive procedures.

Dr. Mustapha is described in the Times as a “high-volume” atherectomy provider. From 2017 to 2021, about half of Medicare’s atherectomy payments – $1.4 billion – went to 200 high-volume providers, with Dr. Mustapha near the top of the list.

Some of Dr. Mustapha’s patients underwent multiple procedures said to help prevent leg amputation, but their legs were amputated anyway, possibly because of the multiple atherectomies, according to the Times.

Judith Lin, MD, MBA, who treated some of Dr. Mustapha’s former patients, was among those who complained about his practice to Michigan’s licensing board. Some of the patients she treated needed amputations; others needed to have leftover wires extracted from their legs.

In 2020, the board investigated Dr. Lin’s complaint and referred it to Michigan’s attorney general, who brought a disciplinary action against Dr. Mustapha. An expert hired by the state to review eight patient cases concluded that Dr. Mustapha’s practice “was characterized by overtreatment and poor documentation.” In some cases, the expert wrote, “unnecessary procedures hastened amputations.”

The statement issued by Dr. Mills, the president of SVS, noted that the society’s practice guideline proposes a threshold of at least 2 years of likely durability for an intervention performed for claudication.

“The growing frequency of multiple, repeated procedures [is] emblematic of poor patient selection and inadequate durability of the chosen procedure, leading to a vicious cycle of repetitive interventions that is not only costly, but also dangerous,” he wrote.
 

Financial incentives to blame?

In 2008, Medicare created incentives for physicians to perform vascular procedures in offices rather than hospitals, in an effort to reduce medical costs, according to both investigative articles. But the effort backfired.

Before the changes, an office provider inserting a stent could make about $1,700 from Medicare; deploying a balloon could bring in roughly $3,800. By 2011, the payments rose to about $6,400 and $4,800, respectively.

Office-based atherectomies soared when, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing $13,500 per procedure, as opposed to roughly $11,450 in a hospital. Atherectomies increased by 60% from 2011 to 2014, and Medicare’s overall costs for peripheral vascular treatments climbed by nearly half a billion dollars.

“The government is really to blame for setting these tremendously high reimbursement values without looking into whether these procedures are helping people or are just worthless procedures or, in fact, are hurting people,” Dipankar Mukherjee, MD, a vascular surgeon and chief of vascular surgery at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital, said in ProPublica.

The result, noted Dr. Rao, is that “there can be perverse or nefarious incentives for doing these procedures. People are incentivized by reimbursement to do something that really falls in the area of clinical judgment and guidelines.”

Major incentives also come from device manufacturers, who often reward physicians who do the most vascular procedures with payments for consulting and other services, according to the Times. In addition, these companies lend money to help physicians or their clinics to finance the purchase of equipment used to perform the procedures.

“Vascular medicine now is the frontier of the Wild West,” Marty Makary, MD, MPH, a professor of surgery and health care quality researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told ProPublica. “People are flying blind walking into the clinics of these doctors with egregious practice patterns, and we know that their pattern is indefensible.”

Recognizing that the situation posed a threat to patients and also damaged the credibility of his specialty, Kim J. Hodgson, MD, a former SVS president, told attendees at the 2021 annual meeting of the SVS, “Somebody has to address what should never have been allowed to get to this level of threat to us and our patients in the first place. We can play whack-a-mole every time the bad actors surface until the cows come home, but that leaves a trail of harmed patients and wasted resources.”

Dr. Hodgson described atherectomy as “a procedure that many believe provides no demonstrable value whatsoever to the patient” and challenged those who disagree to prove it.
 

Multidisciplinary teams needed

Other experts believe there are times that revascularization procedures, including atherectomy, are appropriate. However, the majority of patients with PAD do not require a procedure, Soo Hyun (Esther) Kim, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Atrium Health Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. In fact, “many patients do not even know they have leg artery blockages.”

Invasive procedures may well be appropriate for patients with severe PAD, especially those with CLTI, and disparities may be keeping those who truly need such interventions – or for whom they may be at least considered – from accessing them. If PAD is not diagnosed and treated in a timely way, Dr. Kim said, those individuals “do indeed lose their limbs.”

Multidisciplinary teams can help, Dr. Kim said. “Specialists from multiple different training backgrounds [can] take good care of patients with PAD,” she said. This is important when access to a particular type of specialist is limited, and because patients with PAD often have complex medical problems that can benefit from a team approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement heart teams and complex coronary disease heart teams are two examples, Dr. Kim noted. “When a high-stakes procedure is being considered, the patient’s case is reviewed by multiple stakeholders to ensure appropriateness of the procedure and collaboratively evaluate risk.”

Dr. Rao also emphasized a team approach. “PAD does not belong to a single specialty,” he said. The revelations from the Times, ProPublica, and other sources “point to the fact that we all – cardiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists – should start thinking about how best to police ourselves and also account for the variation in clinical judgment.”

Use of a multidisciplinary team is a “guideline-recommended approach” for coronary artery revascularization, he said, “I think the same should apply for PAD.”

PAD is a sign of systemic atherosclerosis, Dr. Kim noted. “The treatment of PAD includes addressing leg pain and wounds with procedures, but the interventions that will keep people alive are the medications we use to prevent heart attack and stroke. Patients with PAD need to understand that treatment is much more than opening up a blockage in the leg.”

Dr. Rao and Dr. Kim disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The former owner of a South Florida nursing school at the heart of a federal investigation into a multistate fraud scheme awarding at least 7,600 fake diplomas will have to serve nearly 2 years and repay millions.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale recently sentenced Johanah Napoleon, former president of the Palm Beach School of Nursing, to 21 months in prison, according to the Miami Herald . The judge also ordered Ms. Napoleon to pay about $3.5 million. She already paid $2.6 million of it, the Herald reports.

The sentence is “indicative of the seriousness of this crime,” shared Willa Fuller, BSN, RN, executive director of the Florida Nurses Association. “Hopefully, this decision will deter potential perpetrators in the future,” Ms. Fuller said in an email.

Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 along with two owners of nursing schools in Maryland and Virginia who worked with her. All pled guilty to selling fake degrees for $6,000-$18,000. The Florida Board of Nursing had previously shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 as a result of its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

A tip related to the Maryland case led to federal charges in January against 25 owners, operators, and employees of the Palm Beach School of Nursing and two other Florida nursing schools for selling thousands of fake nursing degrees. Those who were charged operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.

Five of those 25 defendants will be sentenced on July 27 in a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale after pleading guilty in May to wire fraud conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. They each face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Purchasers of the fake associate or bachelor’s degrees received transcripts showing that they completed coursework. Some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Napoleon’s attorney, Joel DeFabio, said in an interview that he requested a lower sentence than the 4 years recommended in sentencing guidelines because Ms. Napoleon pled guilty quickly and cooperated with the federal investigation.

Mr. DeFabio said that Ms. Napoleon will appear as the government’s witness in a trial in November against Gail Russ, who is one defendant, along with 13 others in the case involving the Palm Beach School of Nursing.

Meanwhile, state nursing boards have been trying to locate nurses who received the fake degrees. In March, the New York nursing board told 903 nurses to either surrender their licenses or prove they had the appropriate education. The board estimated that another 2,300 licensees from the Florida schools had pending applications.

Some nurses who received fake diplomas are pushing back. Attorneys for nurses in Georgia and Pennsylvania claim that their clients were either victims or in some cases, have legitimate credentials.

“The quality of nursing education as well as protection of applicants from these harmful schemes is essential to maintaining the strict standards of the nursing profession,” Ms. Fuller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The former owner of a South Florida nursing school at the heart of a federal investigation into a multistate fraud scheme awarding at least 7,600 fake diplomas will have to serve nearly 2 years and repay millions.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale recently sentenced Johanah Napoleon, former president of the Palm Beach School of Nursing, to 21 months in prison, according to the Miami Herald . The judge also ordered Ms. Napoleon to pay about $3.5 million. She already paid $2.6 million of it, the Herald reports.

The sentence is “indicative of the seriousness of this crime,” shared Willa Fuller, BSN, RN, executive director of the Florida Nurses Association. “Hopefully, this decision will deter potential perpetrators in the future,” Ms. Fuller said in an email.

Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 along with two owners of nursing schools in Maryland and Virginia who worked with her. All pled guilty to selling fake degrees for $6,000-$18,000. The Florida Board of Nursing had previously shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 as a result of its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

A tip related to the Maryland case led to federal charges in January against 25 owners, operators, and employees of the Palm Beach School of Nursing and two other Florida nursing schools for selling thousands of fake nursing degrees. Those who were charged operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.

Five of those 25 defendants will be sentenced on July 27 in a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale after pleading guilty in May to wire fraud conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. They each face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Purchasers of the fake associate or bachelor’s degrees received transcripts showing that they completed coursework. Some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Napoleon’s attorney, Joel DeFabio, said in an interview that he requested a lower sentence than the 4 years recommended in sentencing guidelines because Ms. Napoleon pled guilty quickly and cooperated with the federal investigation.

Mr. DeFabio said that Ms. Napoleon will appear as the government’s witness in a trial in November against Gail Russ, who is one defendant, along with 13 others in the case involving the Palm Beach School of Nursing.

Meanwhile, state nursing boards have been trying to locate nurses who received the fake degrees. In March, the New York nursing board told 903 nurses to either surrender their licenses or prove they had the appropriate education. The board estimated that another 2,300 licensees from the Florida schools had pending applications.

Some nurses who received fake diplomas are pushing back. Attorneys for nurses in Georgia and Pennsylvania claim that their clients were either victims or in some cases, have legitimate credentials.

“The quality of nursing education as well as protection of applicants from these harmful schemes is essential to maintaining the strict standards of the nursing profession,” Ms. Fuller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The former owner of a South Florida nursing school at the heart of a federal investigation into a multistate fraud scheme awarding at least 7,600 fake diplomas will have to serve nearly 2 years and repay millions.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale recently sentenced Johanah Napoleon, former president of the Palm Beach School of Nursing, to 21 months in prison, according to the Miami Herald . The judge also ordered Ms. Napoleon to pay about $3.5 million. She already paid $2.6 million of it, the Herald reports.

The sentence is “indicative of the seriousness of this crime,” shared Willa Fuller, BSN, RN, executive director of the Florida Nurses Association. “Hopefully, this decision will deter potential perpetrators in the future,” Ms. Fuller said in an email.

Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 along with two owners of nursing schools in Maryland and Virginia who worked with her. All pled guilty to selling fake degrees for $6,000-$18,000. The Florida Board of Nursing had previously shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 as a result of its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

A tip related to the Maryland case led to federal charges in January against 25 owners, operators, and employees of the Palm Beach School of Nursing and two other Florida nursing schools for selling thousands of fake nursing degrees. Those who were charged operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.

Five of those 25 defendants will be sentenced on July 27 in a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale after pleading guilty in May to wire fraud conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. They each face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Purchasers of the fake associate or bachelor’s degrees received transcripts showing that they completed coursework. Some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Napoleon’s attorney, Joel DeFabio, said in an interview that he requested a lower sentence than the 4 years recommended in sentencing guidelines because Ms. Napoleon pled guilty quickly and cooperated with the federal investigation.

Mr. DeFabio said that Ms. Napoleon will appear as the government’s witness in a trial in November against Gail Russ, who is one defendant, along with 13 others in the case involving the Palm Beach School of Nursing.

Meanwhile, state nursing boards have been trying to locate nurses who received the fake degrees. In March, the New York nursing board told 903 nurses to either surrender their licenses or prove they had the appropriate education. The board estimated that another 2,300 licensees from the Florida schools had pending applications.

Some nurses who received fake diplomas are pushing back. Attorneys for nurses in Georgia and Pennsylvania claim that their clients were either victims or in some cases, have legitimate credentials.

“The quality of nursing education as well as protection of applicants from these harmful schemes is essential to maintaining the strict standards of the nursing profession,” Ms. Fuller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“What if VA health care goes away?” That was the headline of a July 6, 2023, Disabled American Veterans news article to its members. The question was not hypothetical. Legislation currently under consideration by the US Congress may make it a strong probability.  

The US Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs recently held a hearing to discuss 2 bills that would drastically reshape the provision of private health care services through the Veterans Community Care Program. An unprecedented coalition of 10 organizations—made up of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nurses, psychologists, physicians, dentists, social workers, optometrists, physician assistants, and nurse anesthetists, as well as the American Psychological Association, the Military and Veterans Committee of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry and the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute—came together in a unified statement for the record highlighting how these proposed policies would open a Pandora’s box that could forever eliminate the Veterans Health Administration as we know it.

Over the past decade—and especially following the passage of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act—there has been a surge of veterans gaining eligibility for private care if a VA medical facility is too far away, does not offer the needed care, or the wait time for an appointment is too long.

Courtesy: Rasmussen P, Farmer CM. The Promise and Challenges of VA Community Care: Veterans' Issues in Focus. Rand Health Q. 2023;10(3):9.

Testifying before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing last year, Miguel LaPuz, MD, MBA, then the acting Deputy Under Secretary for Health at the VA, warned that “VA is rapidly approaching a point where half of all care available in both settings is provided through community care.” He cautioned that leaders were bracing for “the potential of a spiral effect.”

Care that is rendered to veterans in the community must, of course, be paid for. When those community costs began to soar at the start of the Community Care program, Congress bailed out the VA by allocating extra funds. Today, escalating costs are drawn from local VA facility budgets. And to guarantee that private sector care is paid for out of VA facility funds, legislators are introducing language, such as in the Veterans Healthcare Freedom Act, which states: “No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section, and this section and the amendments made by this section shall be carried out using amounts otherwise made available to the Veterans Health Administration.” The anticipated vicious cycle looms. More money pouring into the private sector will force reductions and closures of in-house VA staff, programs, clinics, and units. This will cause more veterans to obtain care in the community, which will further drain more money out of VA facilities, leading to more reductions, etc. Rural areas will likely be hit hardest.

The VA is nearing the tipping point of this ever-descending spiral. And that is even without expanding eligibility further. Three provisions in this pair of bills could, on their own, drastically open eligibility, eliminate remaining guardrails, and push VA over the edge:

(1) Veteran preference. Tucked into the HEALTH Act, introduced by the ranking Republican Member, Jerry Moran of Kansas, is language which would require VA to consider a “veteran’s preference” for obtaining their health care in the private sector.

This stipulation violates the intent of the VA MISSION Act. When MISSION passed, there was bipartisan agreement that the Community Care Program was meant, in numerous Senators’ words, to “supplement, not supplant” VA health care. A veteran would be offered the option of receiving health care outside of the VA under 6 narrowly defined criteria. Legislators understood that veterans would get the option to choose whether to receive care in the private sector or the VA if, and only if, they qualified under the 6 eligibility rules. As a well-researched document coauthored by Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated, “veteran convenience or preference” should never be used as a sole reason for referral.

Explicitly adding preference for the first time will create the expectation among veterans and lawmakers of a new allowance. Were this to pass, every veteran—100%—would become eligible for referral to the private sector, kicking off an unstoppable drainage of VA budget resources and threatening its viability. Hopefully, the Senate will follow the lead of the US House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs which, last week, amended its its own community care bill by deleting “veteran preference” as a possible new eligibility criterion.

(2) Self-referral. Also being deliberated is the Making Community Care Work for Veterans Act, a draft bill authored by the US Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Democratic Chairman Senator Jon Tester of Montana. It calls for allowing self-initiated routine vaccinations and routine vision/hearing services in the community.

On the surface, Tester’s bill focuses on only a tiny sliver of care. But once self-referral is permitted for a few services, private sector interests will, in no time, push the door wide open and add more services to which veterans can self-refer. Testimony at the hearing confirmed that prediction, as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and America’s Warrior Partnership stated there is no reason to limit self-referral to only eye and ear examinations. They proposed that self-referral should extend to mental health, substance use, podiatry, prosthetics, laboratory services, dermatology, and diabetes. Like other perilous sections of these bills, seemingly innocuous language would quickly lead to crippling impacts.

(3) Pilot program for unfettered access. The HEALTH Act contains another provision in which veterans would be allowed to receive outpatient care without VA referral, authorization, or oversight. An enrolled veteran could simply make an appointment with any Veterans Community Care Program mental health or substance use disorder practitioner for care for any duration of time. VA’s only role would be to pay the invoice. Private sector interests have been pressing this sort of program for years, and when it was carefully studied by the Commission on Care, the costs were estimated to be 2 to 3 times the existing system. That would come from a combination of fee-for-service reimbursement structures that abet overuse and higher overall costs in the private sector. Were the pilot to pass, VA would convert from its primary role as a system providing health care to an insurance carrier.

In the name of offering more choices, health care options will diminish for veterans. When VA programs/clinics/facilities close, veterans—especially service-connected veterans who depend on VA for high-quality care tailored to their needs—will lose those choices. Moreover, a downsized VA will make it nearly impossible for the VA to continue to research veterans’ complex health conditions, educate future health care professionals (the majority of whom train at VA medical centers), or fulfill its Fourth Mission as a backup for national emergencies.

Senate Committee members indicated their intention to combine provisions of the Moran and Tester bills into a larger compromise bill in September. Legislators must slow down, contemplate the ramifications, and set aside the stipulations noted above. What is needed first is a projection of future veterans’ authorizations for community care (under current eligibility criteria and also with these new allowances), how much money would that pull out of VA facilities, and what is the tipping point of a doom cycle.

In the meantime, there are smart solutions to ensure veterans can access high-quality care, as Disabled American Veterans testified at the hearing: By “investing in VA's health care infrastructure and staffing… this is particularly true for veterans who live in rural and remote areas where VA is most likely to be a stable, long-term health care option for veterans.”

The VA administers the most successful health care system in the country. As a recent summary of research confirmed yet again, the quality of care delivered by the VA is as good as or better than the care veterans receive from VA-paid community care or the general public obtains through private care. There will always be a supplemental role for the community to play when VA cannot provide care in a timely or convenient manner. But community care must be fixed in ways that never starves VA facilities of essential funding. If there ever were a time to stand up for the sake of our veterans and the long-term viability of the VA, it is now.

“What if VA health care goes away?” That was the headline of a July 6, 2023, Disabled American Veterans news article to its members. The question was not hypothetical. Legislation currently under consideration by the US Congress may make it a strong probability.  

The US Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs recently held a hearing to discuss 2 bills that would drastically reshape the provision of private health care services through the Veterans Community Care Program. An unprecedented coalition of 10 organizations—made up of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nurses, psychologists, physicians, dentists, social workers, optometrists, physician assistants, and nurse anesthetists, as well as the American Psychological Association, the Military and Veterans Committee of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry and the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute—came together in a unified statement for the record highlighting how these proposed policies would open a Pandora’s box that could forever eliminate the Veterans Health Administration as we know it.

Over the past decade—and especially following the passage of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act—there has been a surge of veterans gaining eligibility for private care if a VA medical facility is too far away, does not offer the needed care, or the wait time for an appointment is too long.

Courtesy: Rasmussen P, Farmer CM. The Promise and Challenges of VA Community Care: Veterans' Issues in Focus. Rand Health Q. 2023;10(3):9.

Testifying before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing last year, Miguel LaPuz, MD, MBA, then the acting Deputy Under Secretary for Health at the VA, warned that “VA is rapidly approaching a point where half of all care available in both settings is provided through community care.” He cautioned that leaders were bracing for “the potential of a spiral effect.”

Care that is rendered to veterans in the community must, of course, be paid for. When those community costs began to soar at the start of the Community Care program, Congress bailed out the VA by allocating extra funds. Today, escalating costs are drawn from local VA facility budgets. And to guarantee that private sector care is paid for out of VA facility funds, legislators are introducing language, such as in the Veterans Healthcare Freedom Act, which states: “No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section, and this section and the amendments made by this section shall be carried out using amounts otherwise made available to the Veterans Health Administration.” The anticipated vicious cycle looms. More money pouring into the private sector will force reductions and closures of in-house VA staff, programs, clinics, and units. This will cause more veterans to obtain care in the community, which will further drain more money out of VA facilities, leading to more reductions, etc. Rural areas will likely be hit hardest.

The VA is nearing the tipping point of this ever-descending spiral. And that is even without expanding eligibility further. Three provisions in this pair of bills could, on their own, drastically open eligibility, eliminate remaining guardrails, and push VA over the edge:

(1) Veteran preference. Tucked into the HEALTH Act, introduced by the ranking Republican Member, Jerry Moran of Kansas, is language which would require VA to consider a “veteran’s preference” for obtaining their health care in the private sector.

This stipulation violates the intent of the VA MISSION Act. When MISSION passed, there was bipartisan agreement that the Community Care Program was meant, in numerous Senators’ words, to “supplement, not supplant” VA health care. A veteran would be offered the option of receiving health care outside of the VA under 6 narrowly defined criteria. Legislators understood that veterans would get the option to choose whether to receive care in the private sector or the VA if, and only if, they qualified under the 6 eligibility rules. As a well-researched document coauthored by Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated, “veteran convenience or preference” should never be used as a sole reason for referral.

Explicitly adding preference for the first time will create the expectation among veterans and lawmakers of a new allowance. Were this to pass, every veteran—100%—would become eligible for referral to the private sector, kicking off an unstoppable drainage of VA budget resources and threatening its viability. Hopefully, the Senate will follow the lead of the US House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs which, last week, amended its its own community care bill by deleting “veteran preference” as a possible new eligibility criterion.

(2) Self-referral. Also being deliberated is the Making Community Care Work for Veterans Act, a draft bill authored by the US Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Democratic Chairman Senator Jon Tester of Montana. It calls for allowing self-initiated routine vaccinations and routine vision/hearing services in the community.

On the surface, Tester’s bill focuses on only a tiny sliver of care. But once self-referral is permitted for a few services, private sector interests will, in no time, push the door wide open and add more services to which veterans can self-refer. Testimony at the hearing confirmed that prediction, as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and America’s Warrior Partnership stated there is no reason to limit self-referral to only eye and ear examinations. They proposed that self-referral should extend to mental health, substance use, podiatry, prosthetics, laboratory services, dermatology, and diabetes. Like other perilous sections of these bills, seemingly innocuous language would quickly lead to crippling impacts.

(3) Pilot program for unfettered access. The HEALTH Act contains another provision in which veterans would be allowed to receive outpatient care without VA referral, authorization, or oversight. An enrolled veteran could simply make an appointment with any Veterans Community Care Program mental health or substance use disorder practitioner for care for any duration of time. VA’s only role would be to pay the invoice. Private sector interests have been pressing this sort of program for years, and when it was carefully studied by the Commission on Care, the costs were estimated to be 2 to 3 times the existing system. That would come from a combination of fee-for-service reimbursement structures that abet overuse and higher overall costs in the private sector. Were the pilot to pass, VA would convert from its primary role as a system providing health care to an insurance carrier.

In the name of offering more choices, health care options will diminish for veterans. When VA programs/clinics/facilities close, veterans—especially service-connected veterans who depend on VA for high-quality care tailored to their needs—will lose those choices. Moreover, a downsized VA will make it nearly impossible for the VA to continue to research veterans’ complex health conditions, educate future health care professionals (the majority of whom train at VA medical centers), or fulfill its Fourth Mission as a backup for national emergencies.

Senate Committee members indicated their intention to combine provisions of the Moran and Tester bills into a larger compromise bill in September. Legislators must slow down, contemplate the ramifications, and set aside the stipulations noted above. What is needed first is a projection of future veterans’ authorizations for community care (under current eligibility criteria and also with these new allowances), how much money would that pull out of VA facilities, and what is the tipping point of a doom cycle.

In the meantime, there are smart solutions to ensure veterans can access high-quality care, as Disabled American Veterans testified at the hearing: By “investing in VA's health care infrastructure and staffing… this is particularly true for veterans who live in rural and remote areas where VA is most likely to be a stable, long-term health care option for veterans.”

The VA administers the most successful health care system in the country. As a recent summary of research confirmed yet again, the quality of care delivered by the VA is as good as or better than the care veterans receive from VA-paid community care or the general public obtains through private care. There will always be a supplemental role for the community to play when VA cannot provide care in a timely or convenient manner. But community care must be fixed in ways that never starves VA facilities of essential funding. If there ever were a time to stand up for the sake of our veterans and the long-term viability of the VA, it is now.

“What if VA health care goes away?” That was the headline of a July 6, 2023, Disabled American Veterans news article to its members. The question was not hypothetical. Legislation currently under consideration by the US Congress may make it a strong probability.  

The US Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs recently held a hearing to discuss 2 bills that would drastically reshape the provision of private health care services through the Veterans Community Care Program. An unprecedented coalition of 10 organizations—made up of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nurses, psychologists, physicians, dentists, social workers, optometrists, physician assistants, and nurse anesthetists, as well as the American Psychological Association, the Military and Veterans Committee of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry and the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute—came together in a unified statement for the record highlighting how these proposed policies would open a Pandora’s box that could forever eliminate the Veterans Health Administration as we know it.

Over the past decade—and especially following the passage of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act—there has been a surge of veterans gaining eligibility for private care if a VA medical facility is too far away, does not offer the needed care, or the wait time for an appointment is too long.

Courtesy: Rasmussen P, Farmer CM. The Promise and Challenges of VA Community Care: Veterans' Issues in Focus. Rand Health Q. 2023;10(3):9.

Testifying before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing last year, Miguel LaPuz, MD, MBA, then the acting Deputy Under Secretary for Health at the VA, warned that “VA is rapidly approaching a point where half of all care available in both settings is provided through community care.” He cautioned that leaders were bracing for “the potential of a spiral effect.”

Care that is rendered to veterans in the community must, of course, be paid for. When those community costs began to soar at the start of the Community Care program, Congress bailed out the VA by allocating extra funds. Today, escalating costs are drawn from local VA facility budgets. And to guarantee that private sector care is paid for out of VA facility funds, legislators are introducing language, such as in the Veterans Healthcare Freedom Act, which states: “No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section, and this section and the amendments made by this section shall be carried out using amounts otherwise made available to the Veterans Health Administration.” The anticipated vicious cycle looms. More money pouring into the private sector will force reductions and closures of in-house VA staff, programs, clinics, and units. This will cause more veterans to obtain care in the community, which will further drain more money out of VA facilities, leading to more reductions, etc. Rural areas will likely be hit hardest.

The VA is nearing the tipping point of this ever-descending spiral. And that is even without expanding eligibility further. Three provisions in this pair of bills could, on their own, drastically open eligibility, eliminate remaining guardrails, and push VA over the edge:

(1) Veteran preference. Tucked into the HEALTH Act, introduced by the ranking Republican Member, Jerry Moran of Kansas, is language which would require VA to consider a “veteran’s preference” for obtaining their health care in the private sector.

This stipulation violates the intent of the VA MISSION Act. When MISSION passed, there was bipartisan agreement that the Community Care Program was meant, in numerous Senators’ words, to “supplement, not supplant” VA health care. A veteran would be offered the option of receiving health care outside of the VA under 6 narrowly defined criteria. Legislators understood that veterans would get the option to choose whether to receive care in the private sector or the VA if, and only if, they qualified under the 6 eligibility rules. As a well-researched document coauthored by Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated, “veteran convenience or preference” should never be used as a sole reason for referral.

Explicitly adding preference for the first time will create the expectation among veterans and lawmakers of a new allowance. Were this to pass, every veteran—100%—would become eligible for referral to the private sector, kicking off an unstoppable drainage of VA budget resources and threatening its viability. Hopefully, the Senate will follow the lead of the US House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs which, last week, amended its its own community care bill by deleting “veteran preference” as a possible new eligibility criterion.

(2) Self-referral. Also being deliberated is the Making Community Care Work for Veterans Act, a draft bill authored by the US Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Democratic Chairman Senator Jon Tester of Montana. It calls for allowing self-initiated routine vaccinations and routine vision/hearing services in the community.

On the surface, Tester’s bill focuses on only a tiny sliver of care. But once self-referral is permitted for a few services, private sector interests will, in no time, push the door wide open and add more services to which veterans can self-refer. Testimony at the hearing confirmed that prediction, as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and America’s Warrior Partnership stated there is no reason to limit self-referral to only eye and ear examinations. They proposed that self-referral should extend to mental health, substance use, podiatry, prosthetics, laboratory services, dermatology, and diabetes. Like other perilous sections of these bills, seemingly innocuous language would quickly lead to crippling impacts.

(3) Pilot program for unfettered access. The HEALTH Act contains another provision in which veterans would be allowed to receive outpatient care without VA referral, authorization, or oversight. An enrolled veteran could simply make an appointment with any Veterans Community Care Program mental health or substance use disorder practitioner for care for any duration of time. VA’s only role would be to pay the invoice. Private sector interests have been pressing this sort of program for years, and when it was carefully studied by the Commission on Care, the costs were estimated to be 2 to 3 times the existing system. That would come from a combination of fee-for-service reimbursement structures that abet overuse and higher overall costs in the private sector. Were the pilot to pass, VA would convert from its primary role as a system providing health care to an insurance carrier.

In the name of offering more choices, health care options will diminish for veterans. When VA programs/clinics/facilities close, veterans—especially service-connected veterans who depend on VA for high-quality care tailored to their needs—will lose those choices. Moreover, a downsized VA will make it nearly impossible for the VA to continue to research veterans’ complex health conditions, educate future health care professionals (the majority of whom train at VA medical centers), or fulfill its Fourth Mission as a backup for national emergencies.

Senate Committee members indicated their intention to combine provisions of the Moran and Tester bills into a larger compromise bill in September. Legislators must slow down, contemplate the ramifications, and set aside the stipulations noted above. What is needed first is a projection of future veterans’ authorizations for community care (under current eligibility criteria and also with these new allowances), how much money would that pull out of VA facilities, and what is the tipping point of a doom cycle.

In the meantime, there are smart solutions to ensure veterans can access high-quality care, as Disabled American Veterans testified at the hearing: By “investing in VA's health care infrastructure and staffing… this is particularly true for veterans who live in rural and remote areas where VA is most likely to be a stable, long-term health care option for veterans.”

The VA administers the most successful health care system in the country. As a recent summary of research confirmed yet again, the quality of care delivered by the VA is as good as or better than the care veterans receive from VA-paid community care or the general public obtains through private care. There will always be a supplemental role for the community to play when VA cannot provide care in a timely or convenient manner. But community care must be fixed in ways that never starves VA facilities of essential funding. If there ever were a time to stand up for the sake of our veterans and the long-term viability of the VA, it is now.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

The use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer reduces the risk of acute urinary side effects of grade 2 or higher by 44% and the risk of acute bowel side effects of grade 2 or higher by 60%, compared with standard CT-guided SBRT (CT‐SBRT).

METHODOLOGY

• With the use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive SBRT, clinicians can customize radiation dosing to accommodate changes in prostate anatomy during treatment, which may also make SBRT safer and less toxic for patients.
• To determine whether this approach does reduce patient side effects, investigators ran a meta-analysis that included 29 studies with 2547 patients comparing the incidence of short-term, physician-assessed bowel and genitourinary side effects between the MRI-guided approach and standard CT-SBRT.
• The investigators reported no statistically significant differences in age, prescribed radiation doses, planning target volumes, or International Prostatism Symptom Scores between the two groups; the use of rectal spacers and the number of patients who received pelvic lymph node radiation were low in both.
• The average window for collecting acute toxicity data was 70 days in the MRI-guided investigations and 94 days in CT-SBRT investigations.

TAKEAWAY

• The pooled estimate for acute grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was 16% with MRI-guided SBRT versus 28% with CT-SBRT (odds ratio, 0.56; P = .04).
• The pooled estimate for grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was 4% with the MRI approach versus 9% with CT-SBRT (OR, 0.40; P = .04).
• There were no differences in grade 3 or higher events, which were rare, between the groups.
• There was also no difference in toxicity among CT‐SBRT studies that used fiducial markers and those that did not.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that the technical advantages in precision of radiotherapy delivery afforded by [MRI-guided] SBRT translate to measurable clinical benefit,” the authors concluded. Potential reasons for the reduced risk of acute toxicity with the MRI-guided approach include “daily online adaptive planning, MRI‐based contouring that results in smaller treatment volumes, and MRI tracking, all of which may facilitate the precision and accuracy of treatment delivery.”

SOURCE

The study was led by Jonathan Leeman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and was published July 24 in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS

• The analysis did not account for differences in dosimetry, radiation planning, and toxicity management and assessment between the studies.
• Late toxicity and cancer control rates were not tracked and may have differed between the two approaches.

DISCLOSURES

• No external funding was reported.
• The investigators reported grants and consulting, personal, and other payments from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

The use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer reduces the risk of acute urinary side effects of grade 2 or higher by 44% and the risk of acute bowel side effects of grade 2 or higher by 60%, compared with standard CT-guided SBRT (CT‐SBRT).

METHODOLOGY

• With the use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive SBRT, clinicians can customize radiation dosing to accommodate changes in prostate anatomy during treatment, which may also make SBRT safer and less toxic for patients.
• To determine whether this approach does reduce patient side effects, investigators ran a meta-analysis that included 29 studies with 2547 patients comparing the incidence of short-term, physician-assessed bowel and genitourinary side effects between the MRI-guided approach and standard CT-SBRT.
• The investigators reported no statistically significant differences in age, prescribed radiation doses, planning target volumes, or International Prostatism Symptom Scores between the two groups; the use of rectal spacers and the number of patients who received pelvic lymph node radiation were low in both.
• The average window for collecting acute toxicity data was 70 days in the MRI-guided investigations and 94 days in CT-SBRT investigations.

TAKEAWAY

• The pooled estimate for acute grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was 16% with MRI-guided SBRT versus 28% with CT-SBRT (odds ratio, 0.56; P = .04).
• The pooled estimate for grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was 4% with the MRI approach versus 9% with CT-SBRT (OR, 0.40; P = .04).
• There were no differences in grade 3 or higher events, which were rare, between the groups.
• There was also no difference in toxicity among CT‐SBRT studies that used fiducial markers and those that did not.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that the technical advantages in precision of radiotherapy delivery afforded by [MRI-guided] SBRT translate to measurable clinical benefit,” the authors concluded. Potential reasons for the reduced risk of acute toxicity with the MRI-guided approach include “daily online adaptive planning, MRI‐based contouring that results in smaller treatment volumes, and MRI tracking, all of which may facilitate the precision and accuracy of treatment delivery.”

SOURCE

The study was led by Jonathan Leeman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and was published July 24 in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS

• The analysis did not account for differences in dosimetry, radiation planning, and toxicity management and assessment between the studies.
• Late toxicity and cancer control rates were not tracked and may have differed between the two approaches.

DISCLOSURES

• No external funding was reported.
• The investigators reported grants and consulting, personal, and other payments from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

The use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer reduces the risk of acute urinary side effects of grade 2 or higher by 44% and the risk of acute bowel side effects of grade 2 or higher by 60%, compared with standard CT-guided SBRT (CT‐SBRT).

METHODOLOGY

• With the use of magnetic resonance–guided daily adaptive SBRT, clinicians can customize radiation dosing to accommodate changes in prostate anatomy during treatment, which may also make SBRT safer and less toxic for patients.
• To determine whether this approach does reduce patient side effects, investigators ran a meta-analysis that included 29 studies with 2547 patients comparing the incidence of short-term, physician-assessed bowel and genitourinary side effects between the MRI-guided approach and standard CT-SBRT.
• The investigators reported no statistically significant differences in age, prescribed radiation doses, planning target volumes, or International Prostatism Symptom Scores between the two groups; the use of rectal spacers and the number of patients who received pelvic lymph node radiation were low in both.
• The average window for collecting acute toxicity data was 70 days in the MRI-guided investigations and 94 days in CT-SBRT investigations.

TAKEAWAY

• The pooled estimate for acute grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was 16% with MRI-guided SBRT versus 28% with CT-SBRT (odds ratio, 0.56; P = .04).
• The pooled estimate for grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was 4% with the MRI approach versus 9% with CT-SBRT (OR, 0.40; P = .04).
• There were no differences in grade 3 or higher events, which were rare, between the groups.
• There was also no difference in toxicity among CT‐SBRT studies that used fiducial markers and those that did not.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that the technical advantages in precision of radiotherapy delivery afforded by [MRI-guided] SBRT translate to measurable clinical benefit,” the authors concluded. Potential reasons for the reduced risk of acute toxicity with the MRI-guided approach include “daily online adaptive planning, MRI‐based contouring that results in smaller treatment volumes, and MRI tracking, all of which may facilitate the precision and accuracy of treatment delivery.”

SOURCE

The study was led by Jonathan Leeman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and was published July 24 in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS

• The analysis did not account for differences in dosimetry, radiation planning, and toxicity management and assessment between the studies.
• Late toxicity and cancer control rates were not tracked and may have differed between the two approaches.

DISCLOSURES

• No external funding was reported.
• The investigators reported grants and consulting, personal, and other payments from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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