Federal Practitioner

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Two biomarkers present in blood measured on the day of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can accurately predict a patient’s risk for death or severe disability 6 months later, new research suggests.

In new data from the TRACK-TBI study group, high levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) proteins found in glial cells and neurons, respectively, correlated with death and severe injury. Investigators note that measuring these biomarkers may give a more accurate assessment of a patient’s prognosis following TBI.

This study is the “first report of the accuracy of a blood test that can be obtained rapidly on the day of injury to predict neurological recovery at 6 months after injury,” lead author Frederick Korley, MD, PhD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in the Lancet Neurology.
 

Added value

The researchers measured GFAP and UCH-L1 in blood samples taken from 1,696 patients with TBI on the day of their injury, and they assessed patient recovery 6 months later.

The markers were measured using the i-STAT TBI Plasma test (Abbott Labs). The test was approved in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which patients with mild TBI should undergo computed tomography scans.

About two-thirds of the study population were men, and the average age was 39 years. All patients were evaluated at Level I trauma centers for injuries caused primarily by traffic accidents or falls.

Six months following injury, 7% of the patients had died and 14% had an unfavorable outcome, ranging from vegetative state to severe disability requiring daily support. In addition, 67% had incomplete recovery, ranging from moderate disabilities requiring assistance outside of the home to minor disabling neurological or psychological deficits.

Day-of-injury GFAP and UCH-L1 levels had a high probability of predicting death (87% for GFAP and 89% for UCH-L1) and severe disability (86% for both GFAP and UCH-L1) at 6 months, the investigators reported.

The biomarkers were less accurate in predicting incomplete recovery (62% for GFAP and 61% for UCH-L1).

The researchers also assessed the added value of combining the blood biomarkers to current TBI prognostic models that take into account variables such as age, motor score, pupil reactivity, and CT characteristics.

In patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-12, adding GFAP and UCH-L1 alone or combined to each of the three International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) models significantly increased their accuracy for predicting death (range, 90%-94%) and unfavorable outcome (range, 83%-89%).

In patients with milder TBI (GCS score, 13-15), adding GFAP and UCH-L1 to the UPFRONT prognostic model modestly increased accuracy for predicting incomplete recovery (69%).
 

‘Important’ findings

Commenting on the study, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said this “critical” study shows that these biomarkers can “predict key outcomes,” including mortality and severe disability. “Thus, in conjunction with clinical evaluations and related data such as neuroimaging, these tests may warrant translation to broader clinical practice, particularly in acute settings,” said Dr. Raji, who was not involved in the research.

Also weighing in, Heidi Fusco, MD, assistant director of the traumatic brain injury program at NYU Langone Rusk Rehabilitation, said the findings are “important.”

“Prognosis after brain injury often is based on the initial presentation, ongoing clinical exams, and neuroimaging; and the addition of biomarkers would contribute to creating a more objective prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

She noted “it’s unclear” whether clinical hospital laboratories would be able to accommodate this type of laboratory drawing.

“It is imperative that clinicians still use the patient history [and] clinical and radiological exam when making clinical decisions for a patient and not just lab values. It would be best to incorporate the GFAP and UCH-L1 into a preexisting prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, One Mind, and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Dr. Korley reported having previously consulted for Abbott Laboratories and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, which makes the assays used in the study. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader ApS and Neurevolution. Dr. Fusco has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two biomarkers present in blood measured on the day of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can accurately predict a patient’s risk for death or severe disability 6 months later, new research suggests.

In new data from the TRACK-TBI study group, high levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) proteins found in glial cells and neurons, respectively, correlated with death and severe injury. Investigators note that measuring these biomarkers may give a more accurate assessment of a patient’s prognosis following TBI.

This study is the “first report of the accuracy of a blood test that can be obtained rapidly on the day of injury to predict neurological recovery at 6 months after injury,” lead author Frederick Korley, MD, PhD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in the Lancet Neurology.
 

Added value

The researchers measured GFAP and UCH-L1 in blood samples taken from 1,696 patients with TBI on the day of their injury, and they assessed patient recovery 6 months later.

The markers were measured using the i-STAT TBI Plasma test (Abbott Labs). The test was approved in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which patients with mild TBI should undergo computed tomography scans.

About two-thirds of the study population were men, and the average age was 39 years. All patients were evaluated at Level I trauma centers for injuries caused primarily by traffic accidents or falls.

Six months following injury, 7% of the patients had died and 14% had an unfavorable outcome, ranging from vegetative state to severe disability requiring daily support. In addition, 67% had incomplete recovery, ranging from moderate disabilities requiring assistance outside of the home to minor disabling neurological or psychological deficits.

Day-of-injury GFAP and UCH-L1 levels had a high probability of predicting death (87% for GFAP and 89% for UCH-L1) and severe disability (86% for both GFAP and UCH-L1) at 6 months, the investigators reported.

The biomarkers were less accurate in predicting incomplete recovery (62% for GFAP and 61% for UCH-L1).

The researchers also assessed the added value of combining the blood biomarkers to current TBI prognostic models that take into account variables such as age, motor score, pupil reactivity, and CT characteristics.

In patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-12, adding GFAP and UCH-L1 alone or combined to each of the three International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) models significantly increased their accuracy for predicting death (range, 90%-94%) and unfavorable outcome (range, 83%-89%).

In patients with milder TBI (GCS score, 13-15), adding GFAP and UCH-L1 to the UPFRONT prognostic model modestly increased accuracy for predicting incomplete recovery (69%).
 

‘Important’ findings

Commenting on the study, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said this “critical” study shows that these biomarkers can “predict key outcomes,” including mortality and severe disability. “Thus, in conjunction with clinical evaluations and related data such as neuroimaging, these tests may warrant translation to broader clinical practice, particularly in acute settings,” said Dr. Raji, who was not involved in the research.

Also weighing in, Heidi Fusco, MD, assistant director of the traumatic brain injury program at NYU Langone Rusk Rehabilitation, said the findings are “important.”

“Prognosis after brain injury often is based on the initial presentation, ongoing clinical exams, and neuroimaging; and the addition of biomarkers would contribute to creating a more objective prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

She noted “it’s unclear” whether clinical hospital laboratories would be able to accommodate this type of laboratory drawing.

“It is imperative that clinicians still use the patient history [and] clinical and radiological exam when making clinical decisions for a patient and not just lab values. It would be best to incorporate the GFAP and UCH-L1 into a preexisting prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, One Mind, and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Dr. Korley reported having previously consulted for Abbott Laboratories and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, which makes the assays used in the study. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader ApS and Neurevolution. Dr. Fusco has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two biomarkers present in blood measured on the day of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can accurately predict a patient’s risk for death or severe disability 6 months later, new research suggests.

In new data from the TRACK-TBI study group, high levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) proteins found in glial cells and neurons, respectively, correlated with death and severe injury. Investigators note that measuring these biomarkers may give a more accurate assessment of a patient’s prognosis following TBI.

This study is the “first report of the accuracy of a blood test that can be obtained rapidly on the day of injury to predict neurological recovery at 6 months after injury,” lead author Frederick Korley, MD, PhD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in the Lancet Neurology.
 

Added value

The researchers measured GFAP and UCH-L1 in blood samples taken from 1,696 patients with TBI on the day of their injury, and they assessed patient recovery 6 months later.

The markers were measured using the i-STAT TBI Plasma test (Abbott Labs). The test was approved in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which patients with mild TBI should undergo computed tomography scans.

About two-thirds of the study population were men, and the average age was 39 years. All patients were evaluated at Level I trauma centers for injuries caused primarily by traffic accidents or falls.

Six months following injury, 7% of the patients had died and 14% had an unfavorable outcome, ranging from vegetative state to severe disability requiring daily support. In addition, 67% had incomplete recovery, ranging from moderate disabilities requiring assistance outside of the home to minor disabling neurological or psychological deficits.

Day-of-injury GFAP and UCH-L1 levels had a high probability of predicting death (87% for GFAP and 89% for UCH-L1) and severe disability (86% for both GFAP and UCH-L1) at 6 months, the investigators reported.

The biomarkers were less accurate in predicting incomplete recovery (62% for GFAP and 61% for UCH-L1).

The researchers also assessed the added value of combining the blood biomarkers to current TBI prognostic models that take into account variables such as age, motor score, pupil reactivity, and CT characteristics.

In patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-12, adding GFAP and UCH-L1 alone or combined to each of the three International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) models significantly increased their accuracy for predicting death (range, 90%-94%) and unfavorable outcome (range, 83%-89%).

In patients with milder TBI (GCS score, 13-15), adding GFAP and UCH-L1 to the UPFRONT prognostic model modestly increased accuracy for predicting incomplete recovery (69%).
 

‘Important’ findings

Commenting on the study, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said this “critical” study shows that these biomarkers can “predict key outcomes,” including mortality and severe disability. “Thus, in conjunction with clinical evaluations and related data such as neuroimaging, these tests may warrant translation to broader clinical practice, particularly in acute settings,” said Dr. Raji, who was not involved in the research.

Also weighing in, Heidi Fusco, MD, assistant director of the traumatic brain injury program at NYU Langone Rusk Rehabilitation, said the findings are “important.”

“Prognosis after brain injury often is based on the initial presentation, ongoing clinical exams, and neuroimaging; and the addition of biomarkers would contribute to creating a more objective prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

She noted “it’s unclear” whether clinical hospital laboratories would be able to accommodate this type of laboratory drawing.

“It is imperative that clinicians still use the patient history [and] clinical and radiological exam when making clinical decisions for a patient and not just lab values. It would be best to incorporate the GFAP and UCH-L1 into a preexisting prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, One Mind, and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Dr. Korley reported having previously consulted for Abbott Laboratories and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, which makes the assays used in the study. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader ApS and Neurevolution. Dr. Fusco has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Monkeypox. Polio. Covid. A quick glance at the news on any given day seems to indicate that outbreaks, epidemics, and perhaps even pandemics are increasing in frequency.

Granted, these types of events are hardly new; from the plagues of the 5th and 13th centuries to the Spanish flu in the 20th century and SARS-CoV-2 today, they’ve been with us from time immemorial. 

What appears to be different, however, is not their frequency, but their intensity, with research reinforcing that we may be facing unique challenges and smaller windows to intervene as we move forward.

Findings from a modeling study, published in 2021 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, underscore that without effective intervention, the probability of extreme events like COVID-19 will likely increase threefold in the coming decades.

“The fact is, pandemic preparedness is not something that people have valued or thought of as important, or paid much attention to,” Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“It’s all been based on some unusual cluster of cases that were causing severe disease and overwhelming local authorities. So often, like Indiana Jones, somebody got dispatched to deal with an outbreak,” Dr. Adalja said.

In a perfect post-COVID world, government bodies, scientists, clinicians, and others would cross silos to coordinate pandemic prevention, not just preparedness. The public would trust those who carry the title “public health” in their daily responsibilities, and in turn, public health experts would get back to their core responsibility – infectious disease preparedness – the role they were initially assigned following Europe’s Black Death during the 14th century. Instead, the world finds itself at a crossroads, with emerging and reemerging infectious disease outbreaks that on the surface appear to arise haphazardly but in reality are the result of decades of reaction and containment policies aimed at putting out fires, not addressing their cause.

Dr. Adalja noted that only when the threat of biological weapons became a reality in the mid-2000s was there a realization that economies of scale could be exploited by merging interests and efforts to develop health security medical countermeasures. For example, it encouraged governments to more closely integrate agencies like the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and infectious disease research organizations and individuals.

Still, while significant strides have been made in certain areas, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed substantial weaknesses remaining in public and private health systems, as well as major gaps in infectious disease preparedness.
 

The role of spillover events

No matter whom you ask, scientists, public health and conservation experts, and infectious disease clinicians all point to one of the most important threats to human health. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo famously put it, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

“The reason why these outbreaks of novel infectious diseases are increasingly occurring is because of human-driven environmental change, particularly land use, unsafe practices when raising farmed animals, and commercial wildlife markets,” Neil M. Vora, MD, a physician specializing in pandemic prevention at Conservation International and a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemic intelligence officer, said in an interview.

In fact, more than 60% of emerging infections and diseases are due to these “spillover events” (zoonotic spillover) that occur when pathogens that commonly circulate in wildlife jump over to new, human hosts.

Several examples come to mind.

COVID-19 may have begun as an enzootic virus from two undetermined animals, using the Huanan Seafood Market as a possible intermediate reservoir, according to a July 26 preprint in the journal Science. 

Likewise, while the Ebola virus was originally attributed to deforestation efforts to create palm oil (which allowed fruit bat carriers to transfer the virus to humans), recent research suggests that bats dwelling in the walls of human dwellings and hospitals are responsible for the 2018 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

(Incidentally, just this week, a new Ebola case was confirmed in Eastern Congo, and it has been genetically linked to the previous outbreak, despite that outbreak having been declared over in early July.)

“When we clear forests, we create opportunities for humans to live alongside the forest edge and displace wildlife. There’s evidence that shows when [these] biodiverse areas are cleared, specialist species that evolved to live in the forests first start to disappear, whereas generalist species – rodents and bats – continue to survive and are able to carry pathogens that can be passed on to humans,” Dr. Vora explained.

So far, China’s outbreak of the novel Langya henipavirus is believed to have spread (either directly or indirectly) by rodents and shrews, according to reports from public health authorities like the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which is currently monitoring the situation. 

Yet, an overreliance on surveillance and containment only perpetuates what Dr. Vora says are cycles of panic and neglect.

“We saw it with Ebola in 2015, in 2016 to 2017 with Zika, you see it with tuberculosis, with sexually transmitted infections, and with COVID. You have policymakers working on solutions, and once they think that they’ve fixed the problem, they’re going to move on to the next crisis.”

It’s also a question of equity.

Reports detailing the reemergence of monkeypox in Nigeria in 2017 were largely ignored, despite the fact that the United States assisted in diagnosing an early case in an 11-year-old boy. At the time, it was clear that the virus was spreading by human-to-human transmission versus animal-to-human transmission, something that had not been seen previously. 

“The current model [is] waiting for pathogens to spill over and then [continuing] to spread signals that rich countries are tolerant of these outbreaks so long as they don’t grow into epidemics or pandemics,” Dr. Vora said.

This model is clearly broken; roughly 5 years after Nigeria reported the resurgence of monkeypox, the United States has more than 14,000 confirmed cases, which represents more than a quarter of the total number of cases reported worldwide. 
 

Public health on the brink

I’s difficult to imagine a future without outbreaks and more pandemics, and if experts are to be believed, we are ill-prepared. 

“I think that we are in a situation where this is a major threat, and people have become complacent about it,” said Dr. Adalja, who noted that we should be asking ourselves if the “government is actually in a position to be able to respond in a way that we need them to or is [that response] tied up in bureaucracy and inefficiency?”

COVID-19 should have been seen as a wake-up call, and many of those deaths were preventable. “With monkeypox, they’re faltering; it should have been a layup, not a disaster,” he emphasized.

Ellen Eaton, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also pointed to the reality that by the time COVID-19 reached North America, the United States had already moved away from the model of the public health department as the epicenter of knowledge, education, awareness, and, ironically, public health.

“Thinking about my community, very few people knew the face and name of our local and state health officers,” she told this news organization.  

“There was just this inherent mistrust of these people. If you add in a lot of talking heads, a lot of politicians and messaging from non-experts that countered what was coming out of our public health agencies early, you had this huge disconnect; in the South, it was the perfect storm for vaccine hesitancy.”

At last count, this perfect storm has led to 1.46 million COVID cases and just over 20,000 deaths – many of which were preventable – in Alabama alone. 

“In certain parts of America, we were starting with a broken system with limited resources and few providers,” Dr. Eaton explained.

Dr. Eaton said that a lot of fields, not just medicine and public health, have finite resources that have been stretched to capacity by COVID, and now monkeypox, and wondered what was next as we’re headed into autumn and influenza season. But she also mentioned the tremendous implications of climate change on infectious diseases and community health and wellness.

“There’s a tremendous need to have the ability to survey not just humans but also how the disease burden in our environment that is fluctuating with climate change is going to impact communities in really important ways,” Dr. Eaton said. 
 

Upstream prevention

Dr. Vora said he could not agree more and believes that upstream prevention holds the key. 

“We have to make sure while there’s tension on this issue that the right solutions are implemented,” he said. 

In coming years, postspillover containment strategies – vaccine research and development and strengthening health care surveillance, for example – are likely to become inadequate.

“We saw it with COVID and we are seeing it again with monkeypox,” Dr. Vora said. “We also have to invest further upstream to prevent spillovers in the first place, for example, by addressing deforestation, commercial wildlife markets and trade, [and] infection control when raising farm animals.”

“The thing is, when you invest in those upstream solutions, you are also mitigating climate change and loss of biodiversity. I’m not saying that we should not invest in postspillover containment efforts; we’re never going to contain every spillover. But we also have to invest in prevention,” he added.

In a piece published in Nature, Dr. Vora and his coauthors acknowledge that several international bodies such as the World Health Organization and G7 have invested in initiatives to facilitate coordinated, global responses to climate change, pandemic preparedness, and response. But they point out that these efforts fail to “explicitly address the negative feedback cycle between environmental degradation, wildlife exploitation, and the emergence of pathogens.”

“Environmental conservation is no longer a left-wing fringe issue, it’s moving into public consciousness, and ... it is public health,” Dr. Vora said. “When we destroy nature, we’re destroying our own ability to survive.”

Dr. Adalja, Dr. Vora, and Dr. Eaton report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Monkeypox. Polio. Covid. A quick glance at the news on any given day seems to indicate that outbreaks, epidemics, and perhaps even pandemics are increasing in frequency.

Granted, these types of events are hardly new; from the plagues of the 5th and 13th centuries to the Spanish flu in the 20th century and SARS-CoV-2 today, they’ve been with us from time immemorial. 

What appears to be different, however, is not their frequency, but their intensity, with research reinforcing that we may be facing unique challenges and smaller windows to intervene as we move forward.

Findings from a modeling study, published in 2021 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, underscore that without effective intervention, the probability of extreme events like COVID-19 will likely increase threefold in the coming decades.

“The fact is, pandemic preparedness is not something that people have valued or thought of as important, or paid much attention to,” Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“It’s all been based on some unusual cluster of cases that were causing severe disease and overwhelming local authorities. So often, like Indiana Jones, somebody got dispatched to deal with an outbreak,” Dr. Adalja said.

In a perfect post-COVID world, government bodies, scientists, clinicians, and others would cross silos to coordinate pandemic prevention, not just preparedness. The public would trust those who carry the title “public health” in their daily responsibilities, and in turn, public health experts would get back to their core responsibility – infectious disease preparedness – the role they were initially assigned following Europe’s Black Death during the 14th century. Instead, the world finds itself at a crossroads, with emerging and reemerging infectious disease outbreaks that on the surface appear to arise haphazardly but in reality are the result of decades of reaction and containment policies aimed at putting out fires, not addressing their cause.

Dr. Adalja noted that only when the threat of biological weapons became a reality in the mid-2000s was there a realization that economies of scale could be exploited by merging interests and efforts to develop health security medical countermeasures. For example, it encouraged governments to more closely integrate agencies like the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and infectious disease research organizations and individuals.

Still, while significant strides have been made in certain areas, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed substantial weaknesses remaining in public and private health systems, as well as major gaps in infectious disease preparedness.
 

The role of spillover events

No matter whom you ask, scientists, public health and conservation experts, and infectious disease clinicians all point to one of the most important threats to human health. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo famously put it, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

“The reason why these outbreaks of novel infectious diseases are increasingly occurring is because of human-driven environmental change, particularly land use, unsafe practices when raising farmed animals, and commercial wildlife markets,” Neil M. Vora, MD, a physician specializing in pandemic prevention at Conservation International and a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemic intelligence officer, said in an interview.

In fact, more than 60% of emerging infections and diseases are due to these “spillover events” (zoonotic spillover) that occur when pathogens that commonly circulate in wildlife jump over to new, human hosts.

Several examples come to mind.

COVID-19 may have begun as an enzootic virus from two undetermined animals, using the Huanan Seafood Market as a possible intermediate reservoir, according to a July 26 preprint in the journal Science. 

Likewise, while the Ebola virus was originally attributed to deforestation efforts to create palm oil (which allowed fruit bat carriers to transfer the virus to humans), recent research suggests that bats dwelling in the walls of human dwellings and hospitals are responsible for the 2018 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

(Incidentally, just this week, a new Ebola case was confirmed in Eastern Congo, and it has been genetically linked to the previous outbreak, despite that outbreak having been declared over in early July.)

“When we clear forests, we create opportunities for humans to live alongside the forest edge and displace wildlife. There’s evidence that shows when [these] biodiverse areas are cleared, specialist species that evolved to live in the forests first start to disappear, whereas generalist species – rodents and bats – continue to survive and are able to carry pathogens that can be passed on to humans,” Dr. Vora explained.

So far, China’s outbreak of the novel Langya henipavirus is believed to have spread (either directly or indirectly) by rodents and shrews, according to reports from public health authorities like the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which is currently monitoring the situation. 

Yet, an overreliance on surveillance and containment only perpetuates what Dr. Vora says are cycles of panic and neglect.

“We saw it with Ebola in 2015, in 2016 to 2017 with Zika, you see it with tuberculosis, with sexually transmitted infections, and with COVID. You have policymakers working on solutions, and once they think that they’ve fixed the problem, they’re going to move on to the next crisis.”

It’s also a question of equity.

Reports detailing the reemergence of monkeypox in Nigeria in 2017 were largely ignored, despite the fact that the United States assisted in diagnosing an early case in an 11-year-old boy. At the time, it was clear that the virus was spreading by human-to-human transmission versus animal-to-human transmission, something that had not been seen previously. 

“The current model [is] waiting for pathogens to spill over and then [continuing] to spread signals that rich countries are tolerant of these outbreaks so long as they don’t grow into epidemics or pandemics,” Dr. Vora said.

This model is clearly broken; roughly 5 years after Nigeria reported the resurgence of monkeypox, the United States has more than 14,000 confirmed cases, which represents more than a quarter of the total number of cases reported worldwide. 
 

Public health on the brink

I’s difficult to imagine a future without outbreaks and more pandemics, and if experts are to be believed, we are ill-prepared. 

“I think that we are in a situation where this is a major threat, and people have become complacent about it,” said Dr. Adalja, who noted that we should be asking ourselves if the “government is actually in a position to be able to respond in a way that we need them to or is [that response] tied up in bureaucracy and inefficiency?”

COVID-19 should have been seen as a wake-up call, and many of those deaths were preventable. “With monkeypox, they’re faltering; it should have been a layup, not a disaster,” he emphasized.

Ellen Eaton, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also pointed to the reality that by the time COVID-19 reached North America, the United States had already moved away from the model of the public health department as the epicenter of knowledge, education, awareness, and, ironically, public health.

“Thinking about my community, very few people knew the face and name of our local and state health officers,” she told this news organization.  

“There was just this inherent mistrust of these people. If you add in a lot of talking heads, a lot of politicians and messaging from non-experts that countered what was coming out of our public health agencies early, you had this huge disconnect; in the South, it was the perfect storm for vaccine hesitancy.”

At last count, this perfect storm has led to 1.46 million COVID cases and just over 20,000 deaths – many of which were preventable – in Alabama alone. 

“In certain parts of America, we were starting with a broken system with limited resources and few providers,” Dr. Eaton explained.

Dr. Eaton said that a lot of fields, not just medicine and public health, have finite resources that have been stretched to capacity by COVID, and now monkeypox, and wondered what was next as we’re headed into autumn and influenza season. But she also mentioned the tremendous implications of climate change on infectious diseases and community health and wellness.

“There’s a tremendous need to have the ability to survey not just humans but also how the disease burden in our environment that is fluctuating with climate change is going to impact communities in really important ways,” Dr. Eaton said. 
 

Upstream prevention

Dr. Vora said he could not agree more and believes that upstream prevention holds the key. 

“We have to make sure while there’s tension on this issue that the right solutions are implemented,” he said. 

In coming years, postspillover containment strategies – vaccine research and development and strengthening health care surveillance, for example – are likely to become inadequate.

“We saw it with COVID and we are seeing it again with monkeypox,” Dr. Vora said. “We also have to invest further upstream to prevent spillovers in the first place, for example, by addressing deforestation, commercial wildlife markets and trade, [and] infection control when raising farm animals.”

“The thing is, when you invest in those upstream solutions, you are also mitigating climate change and loss of biodiversity. I’m not saying that we should not invest in postspillover containment efforts; we’re never going to contain every spillover. But we also have to invest in prevention,” he added.

In a piece published in Nature, Dr. Vora and his coauthors acknowledge that several international bodies such as the World Health Organization and G7 have invested in initiatives to facilitate coordinated, global responses to climate change, pandemic preparedness, and response. But they point out that these efforts fail to “explicitly address the negative feedback cycle between environmental degradation, wildlife exploitation, and the emergence of pathogens.”

“Environmental conservation is no longer a left-wing fringe issue, it’s moving into public consciousness, and ... it is public health,” Dr. Vora said. “When we destroy nature, we’re destroying our own ability to survive.”

Dr. Adalja, Dr. Vora, and Dr. Eaton report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Monkeypox. Polio. Covid. A quick glance at the news on any given day seems to indicate that outbreaks, epidemics, and perhaps even pandemics are increasing in frequency.

Granted, these types of events are hardly new; from the plagues of the 5th and 13th centuries to the Spanish flu in the 20th century and SARS-CoV-2 today, they’ve been with us from time immemorial. 

What appears to be different, however, is not their frequency, but their intensity, with research reinforcing that we may be facing unique challenges and smaller windows to intervene as we move forward.

Findings from a modeling study, published in 2021 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, underscore that without effective intervention, the probability of extreme events like COVID-19 will likely increase threefold in the coming decades.

“The fact is, pandemic preparedness is not something that people have valued or thought of as important, or paid much attention to,” Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“It’s all been based on some unusual cluster of cases that were causing severe disease and overwhelming local authorities. So often, like Indiana Jones, somebody got dispatched to deal with an outbreak,” Dr. Adalja said.

In a perfect post-COVID world, government bodies, scientists, clinicians, and others would cross silos to coordinate pandemic prevention, not just preparedness. The public would trust those who carry the title “public health” in their daily responsibilities, and in turn, public health experts would get back to their core responsibility – infectious disease preparedness – the role they were initially assigned following Europe’s Black Death during the 14th century. Instead, the world finds itself at a crossroads, with emerging and reemerging infectious disease outbreaks that on the surface appear to arise haphazardly but in reality are the result of decades of reaction and containment policies aimed at putting out fires, not addressing their cause.

Dr. Adalja noted that only when the threat of biological weapons became a reality in the mid-2000s was there a realization that economies of scale could be exploited by merging interests and efforts to develop health security medical countermeasures. For example, it encouraged governments to more closely integrate agencies like the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and infectious disease research organizations and individuals.

Still, while significant strides have been made in certain areas, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed substantial weaknesses remaining in public and private health systems, as well as major gaps in infectious disease preparedness.
 

The role of spillover events

No matter whom you ask, scientists, public health and conservation experts, and infectious disease clinicians all point to one of the most important threats to human health. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo famously put it, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

“The reason why these outbreaks of novel infectious diseases are increasingly occurring is because of human-driven environmental change, particularly land use, unsafe practices when raising farmed animals, and commercial wildlife markets,” Neil M. Vora, MD, a physician specializing in pandemic prevention at Conservation International and a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemic intelligence officer, said in an interview.

In fact, more than 60% of emerging infections and diseases are due to these “spillover events” (zoonotic spillover) that occur when pathogens that commonly circulate in wildlife jump over to new, human hosts.

Several examples come to mind.

COVID-19 may have begun as an enzootic virus from two undetermined animals, using the Huanan Seafood Market as a possible intermediate reservoir, according to a July 26 preprint in the journal Science. 

Likewise, while the Ebola virus was originally attributed to deforestation efforts to create palm oil (which allowed fruit bat carriers to transfer the virus to humans), recent research suggests that bats dwelling in the walls of human dwellings and hospitals are responsible for the 2018 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

(Incidentally, just this week, a new Ebola case was confirmed in Eastern Congo, and it has been genetically linked to the previous outbreak, despite that outbreak having been declared over in early July.)

“When we clear forests, we create opportunities for humans to live alongside the forest edge and displace wildlife. There’s evidence that shows when [these] biodiverse areas are cleared, specialist species that evolved to live in the forests first start to disappear, whereas generalist species – rodents and bats – continue to survive and are able to carry pathogens that can be passed on to humans,” Dr. Vora explained.

So far, China’s outbreak of the novel Langya henipavirus is believed to have spread (either directly or indirectly) by rodents and shrews, according to reports from public health authorities like the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which is currently monitoring the situation. 

Yet, an overreliance on surveillance and containment only perpetuates what Dr. Vora says are cycles of panic and neglect.

“We saw it with Ebola in 2015, in 2016 to 2017 with Zika, you see it with tuberculosis, with sexually transmitted infections, and with COVID. You have policymakers working on solutions, and once they think that they’ve fixed the problem, they’re going to move on to the next crisis.”

It’s also a question of equity.

Reports detailing the reemergence of monkeypox in Nigeria in 2017 were largely ignored, despite the fact that the United States assisted in diagnosing an early case in an 11-year-old boy. At the time, it was clear that the virus was spreading by human-to-human transmission versus animal-to-human transmission, something that had not been seen previously. 

“The current model [is] waiting for pathogens to spill over and then [continuing] to spread signals that rich countries are tolerant of these outbreaks so long as they don’t grow into epidemics or pandemics,” Dr. Vora said.

This model is clearly broken; roughly 5 years after Nigeria reported the resurgence of monkeypox, the United States has more than 14,000 confirmed cases, which represents more than a quarter of the total number of cases reported worldwide. 
 

Public health on the brink

I’s difficult to imagine a future without outbreaks and more pandemics, and if experts are to be believed, we are ill-prepared. 

“I think that we are in a situation where this is a major threat, and people have become complacent about it,” said Dr. Adalja, who noted that we should be asking ourselves if the “government is actually in a position to be able to respond in a way that we need them to or is [that response] tied up in bureaucracy and inefficiency?”

COVID-19 should have been seen as a wake-up call, and many of those deaths were preventable. “With monkeypox, they’re faltering; it should have been a layup, not a disaster,” he emphasized.

Ellen Eaton, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also pointed to the reality that by the time COVID-19 reached North America, the United States had already moved away from the model of the public health department as the epicenter of knowledge, education, awareness, and, ironically, public health.

“Thinking about my community, very few people knew the face and name of our local and state health officers,” she told this news organization.  

“There was just this inherent mistrust of these people. If you add in a lot of talking heads, a lot of politicians and messaging from non-experts that countered what was coming out of our public health agencies early, you had this huge disconnect; in the South, it was the perfect storm for vaccine hesitancy.”

At last count, this perfect storm has led to 1.46 million COVID cases and just over 20,000 deaths – many of which were preventable – in Alabama alone. 

“In certain parts of America, we were starting with a broken system with limited resources and few providers,” Dr. Eaton explained.

Dr. Eaton said that a lot of fields, not just medicine and public health, have finite resources that have been stretched to capacity by COVID, and now monkeypox, and wondered what was next as we’re headed into autumn and influenza season. But she also mentioned the tremendous implications of climate change on infectious diseases and community health and wellness.

“There’s a tremendous need to have the ability to survey not just humans but also how the disease burden in our environment that is fluctuating with climate change is going to impact communities in really important ways,” Dr. Eaton said. 
 

Upstream prevention

Dr. Vora said he could not agree more and believes that upstream prevention holds the key. 

“We have to make sure while there’s tension on this issue that the right solutions are implemented,” he said. 

In coming years, postspillover containment strategies – vaccine research and development and strengthening health care surveillance, for example – are likely to become inadequate.

“We saw it with COVID and we are seeing it again with monkeypox,” Dr. Vora said. “We also have to invest further upstream to prevent spillovers in the first place, for example, by addressing deforestation, commercial wildlife markets and trade, [and] infection control when raising farm animals.”

“The thing is, when you invest in those upstream solutions, you are also mitigating climate change and loss of biodiversity. I’m not saying that we should not invest in postspillover containment efforts; we’re never going to contain every spillover. But we also have to invest in prevention,” he added.

In a piece published in Nature, Dr. Vora and his coauthors acknowledge that several international bodies such as the World Health Organization and G7 have invested in initiatives to facilitate coordinated, global responses to climate change, pandemic preparedness, and response. But they point out that these efforts fail to “explicitly address the negative feedback cycle between environmental degradation, wildlife exploitation, and the emergence of pathogens.”

“Environmental conservation is no longer a left-wing fringe issue, it’s moving into public consciousness, and ... it is public health,” Dr. Vora said. “When we destroy nature, we’re destroying our own ability to survive.”

Dr. Adalja, Dr. Vora, and Dr. Eaton report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone app that combines white noise, active game-based therapy, and counseling could help “rewire” the brain to provide relief from tinnitus symptoms, new research suggests. In a randomized controlled trial, results at 12 weeks showed patients with tinnitus reported clinically meaningful reductions in ratings of annoyance, inability to ignore, unpleasantness, and loudness after using a digital polytherapeutic app prototype that focuses on relief, relaxation, and attention-focused retraining. In addition, their improvements were significantly greater than for the control group, which received a common white noise app.

Researchers called the results “promising” for a condition that has no cure and few successful treatments. “What this therapy does is essentially rewire the brain in a way that de-emphasizes the sound of the tinnitus to a background noise that has no meaning or relevance to the listener,” lead author Grant Searchfield, PhD, associate professor of audiology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Frontiers in Neurology.
 

Worldwide problem

A recent study showed more than 740 million adults worldwide (nearly 15% of the population) have experienced at least one symptom of tinnitus – and about 120 million are severely affected. Tinnitus is the perception of a ringing, buzzing, whistling, or hissing noise in one or both ears when no external source of the sound is present. Often caused by damage to the auditory system, tinnitus can also be a symptom of a wide range of medical conditions and has been identified as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. In its most severe form, which is associated with hearing loss, tinnitus can also affect a patient’s mental, emotional, and social health.

For the current study, participants with tinnitus were randomly assigned to a popular app that uses white noise (control group, n = 30) or to the UpSilent app (n = 31). The UpSilent group received a smartphone app, Bluetooth bone conduction headphones, a Bluetooth neck pillow speaker for sleep, and written counseling materials. Participants in the control group received a widely available app called “White Noise” and in-ear wired headphones.
 

‘Quicker and more effective’

Both groups reported reductions in ratings of annoyance, inability to ignore, unpleasantness, and loudness at 12 weeks. But significantly more of the UpSilent group reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with the control group (65% vs. 43%, respectively; P = .049).

“Earlier trials have found white noise, goal-based counseling, goal-oriented games, and other technology-based therapies are effective for some people some of the time,” Dr. Searchfield said. “This is quicker and more effective, taking 12 weeks rather than 12 months for more individuals to gain some control,” he added.

The investigators noted that the study was not designed to determine which of the app’s functions of passive listening, active listening, or counseling contributed to symptom improvement.

The next step will be to refine the prototype and proceed to larger local and international trials with a view toward approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, they reported.

The researchers hope the app will be clinically available in about 6 months.

The study was funded by Return on Science, Auckland UniServices. Dr. Searchfield is a founder and scientific officer for TrueSilence, a spinout company of the University of Auckland, and has a financial interest in TrueSilence. His coauthor has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone app that combines white noise, active game-based therapy, and counseling could help “rewire” the brain to provide relief from tinnitus symptoms, new research suggests. In a randomized controlled trial, results at 12 weeks showed patients with tinnitus reported clinically meaningful reductions in ratings of annoyance, inability to ignore, unpleasantness, and loudness after using a digital polytherapeutic app prototype that focuses on relief, relaxation, and attention-focused retraining. In addition, their improvements were significantly greater than for the control group, which received a common white noise app.

Researchers called the results “promising” for a condition that has no cure and few successful treatments. “What this therapy does is essentially rewire the brain in a way that de-emphasizes the sound of the tinnitus to a background noise that has no meaning or relevance to the listener,” lead author Grant Searchfield, PhD, associate professor of audiology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Frontiers in Neurology.
 

Worldwide problem

A recent study showed more than 740 million adults worldwide (nearly 15% of the population) have experienced at least one symptom of tinnitus – and about 120 million are severely affected. Tinnitus is the perception of a ringing, buzzing, whistling, or hissing noise in one or both ears when no external source of the sound is present. Often caused by damage to the auditory system, tinnitus can also be a symptom of a wide range of medical conditions and has been identified as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. In its most severe form, which is associated with hearing loss, tinnitus can also affect a patient’s mental, emotional, and social health.

For the current study, participants with tinnitus were randomly assigned to a popular app that uses white noise (control group, n = 30) or to the UpSilent app (n = 31). The UpSilent group received a smartphone app, Bluetooth bone conduction headphones, a Bluetooth neck pillow speaker for sleep, and written counseling materials. Participants in the control group received a widely available app called “White Noise” and in-ear wired headphones.
 

‘Quicker and more effective’

Both groups reported reductions in ratings of annoyance, inability to ignore, unpleasantness, and loudness at 12 weeks. But significantly more of the UpSilent group reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with the control group (65% vs. 43%, respectively; P = .049).

“Earlier trials have found white noise, goal-based counseling, goal-oriented games, and other technology-based therapies are effective for some people some of the time,” Dr. Searchfield said. “This is quicker and more effective, taking 12 weeks rather than 12 months for more individuals to gain some control,” he added.

The investigators noted that the study was not designed to determine which of the app’s functions of passive listening, active listening, or counseling contributed to symptom improvement.

The next step will be to refine the prototype and proceed to larger local and international trials with a view toward approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, they reported.

The researchers hope the app will be clinically available in about 6 months.

The study was funded by Return on Science, Auckland UniServices. Dr. Searchfield is a founder and scientific officer for TrueSilence, a spinout company of the University of Auckland, and has a financial interest in TrueSilence. His coauthor has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone app that combines white noise, active game-based therapy, and counseling could help “rewire” the brain to provide relief from tinnitus symptoms, new research suggests. In a randomized controlled trial, results at 12 weeks showed patients with tinnitus reported clinically meaningful reductions in ratings of annoyance, inability to ignore, unpleasantness, and loudness after using a digital polytherapeutic app prototype that focuses on relief, relaxation, and attention-focused retraining. In addition, their improvements were significantly greater than for the control group, which received a common white noise app.

Researchers called the results “promising” for a condition that has no cure and few successful treatments. “What this therapy does is essentially rewire the brain in a way that de-emphasizes the sound of the tinnitus to a background noise that has no meaning or relevance to the listener,” lead author Grant Searchfield, PhD, associate professor of audiology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Frontiers in Neurology.
 

Worldwide problem

A recent study showed more than 740 million adults worldwide (nearly 15% of the population) have experienced at least one symptom of tinnitus – and about 120 million are severely affected. Tinnitus is the perception of a ringing, buzzing, whistling, or hissing noise in one or both ears when no external source of the sound is present. Often caused by damage to the auditory system, tinnitus can also be a symptom of a wide range of medical conditions and has been identified as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. In its most severe form, which is associated with hearing loss, tinnitus can also affect a patient’s mental, emotional, and social health.

For the current study, participants with tinnitus were randomly assigned to a popular app that uses white noise (control group, n = 30) or to the UpSilent app (n = 31). The UpSilent group received a smartphone app, Bluetooth bone conduction headphones, a Bluetooth neck pillow speaker for sleep, and written counseling materials. Participants in the control group received a widely available app called “White Noise” and in-ear wired headphones.
 

‘Quicker and more effective’

Both groups reported reductions in ratings of annoyance, inability to ignore, unpleasantness, and loudness at 12 weeks. But significantly more of the UpSilent group reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with the control group (65% vs. 43%, respectively; P = .049).

“Earlier trials have found white noise, goal-based counseling, goal-oriented games, and other technology-based therapies are effective for some people some of the time,” Dr. Searchfield said. “This is quicker and more effective, taking 12 weeks rather than 12 months for more individuals to gain some control,” he added.

The investigators noted that the study was not designed to determine which of the app’s functions of passive listening, active listening, or counseling contributed to symptom improvement.

The next step will be to refine the prototype and proceed to larger local and international trials with a view toward approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, they reported.

The researchers hope the app will be clinically available in about 6 months.

The study was funded by Return on Science, Auckland UniServices. Dr. Searchfield is a founder and scientific officer for TrueSilence, a spinout company of the University of Auckland, and has a financial interest in TrueSilence. His coauthor has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of the epidermal growth-factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib led to about a 30% reduction in duodenal polyp burden after 6 months of once-weekly treatment for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in a phase 2 clinical trial.

“If existing data are confirmed and extended through future research, this strategy has the potential for substantial impact on clinical practice by decreasing, delaying, or augmenting endoscopic and surgical interventions as the mainstay for duodenal cancer prevention in this high-risk patient population,” the study team says.

FAP is a rare genetic condition that markedly raises the risk for colorectal polyps and cancer.

“The biological pathway that leads to the development of polyps and colon cancer in patients with FAP is the same biological pathway as patients in the general population,” study investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in a news release.

“Our trial looked at opportunities to use chemoprevention agents in patients with FAP to inhibit the development of precancerous polyps in the small bowel and colorectum,” Dr. Samadder explains.

In an earlier study, the researchers found that the combination of the COX-2 inhibitor sulindac (150 mg twice daily) and erlotinib (75 mg daily) reduced duodenal polyp burden.

However, the dual-drug strategy was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate, which may limit use of the combination for chemoprevention, as reported previously.

This phase 2 study tested whether erlotinib’s AE profile would be improved with a once-weekly dosing schedule while still reducing polyp burden.

The study was first published online in the journal Gut.

In the single-arm, multicenter study, 46 adults with FAP (mean age, 44 years; 48% women) self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth one time per week for 6 months. All but four participants completed the 6-month study.

After 6 months of weekly erlotinib, duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced, with a mean percent reduction of 29.6% (95% confidence interval: –39.6% to –19.7%; P < .0001).

The benefit was observed in patients with either Spigelman 2 or Spigelman 3 duodenal polyp burden.

“Though only 12% of patients noted a decrease in Spigelman stage from 3 to 2 associated with therapy, the majority of patients (86%) had stable disease while on treatment,” the study team reports.

GI polyp number (a secondary outcome) was also decreased after 6 months of treatment with erlotinib (median decrease of 30.8%; P = .0256).

While once-weekly erlotinib was “generally” well tolerated, grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 72% of patients; two suffered grade 3 toxicity. Nonetheless, the AE rate was significantly more than the expected null hypothesis rate of 50%, the study team states.

Four patients withdrew from the study because of drug-induced AEs, which included grade 3 rash acneiform, grade 2 infections (hand, foot, and mouth disease), grade 1 fatigue, and grade 1 rash acneiform. No grade 4 AEs were reported.

The most common AE was an erlotinib-induced acneiform-like rash, which occurred in 56.5% of study patients. The rash was managed with topical cortisone and/or clindamycin. Additional erlotinib-induced AEs included oral mucositis (6.5%), diarrhea (50%), and nausea (26.1%).

Summing up, Dr. Samadder and colleagues note that FAP “portends a heritable, systemic predisposition to cancer, and the ultimate goal of cancer preventive intervention is to interrupt the development of neoplasia, need for surgery, and ultimately death from cancer, with an acceptable AE profile.”

The findings from this phase 2 trial support further study of erlotinib as “an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated gastrointestinal polyposis,” they conclude.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Samadder is a consultant for Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of the epidermal growth-factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib led to about a 30% reduction in duodenal polyp burden after 6 months of once-weekly treatment for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in a phase 2 clinical trial.

“If existing data are confirmed and extended through future research, this strategy has the potential for substantial impact on clinical practice by decreasing, delaying, or augmenting endoscopic and surgical interventions as the mainstay for duodenal cancer prevention in this high-risk patient population,” the study team says.

FAP is a rare genetic condition that markedly raises the risk for colorectal polyps and cancer.

“The biological pathway that leads to the development of polyps and colon cancer in patients with FAP is the same biological pathway as patients in the general population,” study investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in a news release.

“Our trial looked at opportunities to use chemoprevention agents in patients with FAP to inhibit the development of precancerous polyps in the small bowel and colorectum,” Dr. Samadder explains.

In an earlier study, the researchers found that the combination of the COX-2 inhibitor sulindac (150 mg twice daily) and erlotinib (75 mg daily) reduced duodenal polyp burden.

However, the dual-drug strategy was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate, which may limit use of the combination for chemoprevention, as reported previously.

This phase 2 study tested whether erlotinib’s AE profile would be improved with a once-weekly dosing schedule while still reducing polyp burden.

The study was first published online in the journal Gut.

In the single-arm, multicenter study, 46 adults with FAP (mean age, 44 years; 48% women) self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth one time per week for 6 months. All but four participants completed the 6-month study.

After 6 months of weekly erlotinib, duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced, with a mean percent reduction of 29.6% (95% confidence interval: –39.6% to –19.7%; P < .0001).

The benefit was observed in patients with either Spigelman 2 or Spigelman 3 duodenal polyp burden.

“Though only 12% of patients noted a decrease in Spigelman stage from 3 to 2 associated with therapy, the majority of patients (86%) had stable disease while on treatment,” the study team reports.

GI polyp number (a secondary outcome) was also decreased after 6 months of treatment with erlotinib (median decrease of 30.8%; P = .0256).

While once-weekly erlotinib was “generally” well tolerated, grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 72% of patients; two suffered grade 3 toxicity. Nonetheless, the AE rate was significantly more than the expected null hypothesis rate of 50%, the study team states.

Four patients withdrew from the study because of drug-induced AEs, which included grade 3 rash acneiform, grade 2 infections (hand, foot, and mouth disease), grade 1 fatigue, and grade 1 rash acneiform. No grade 4 AEs were reported.

The most common AE was an erlotinib-induced acneiform-like rash, which occurred in 56.5% of study patients. The rash was managed with topical cortisone and/or clindamycin. Additional erlotinib-induced AEs included oral mucositis (6.5%), diarrhea (50%), and nausea (26.1%).

Summing up, Dr. Samadder and colleagues note that FAP “portends a heritable, systemic predisposition to cancer, and the ultimate goal of cancer preventive intervention is to interrupt the development of neoplasia, need for surgery, and ultimately death from cancer, with an acceptable AE profile.”

The findings from this phase 2 trial support further study of erlotinib as “an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated gastrointestinal polyposis,” they conclude.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Samadder is a consultant for Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of the epidermal growth-factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib led to about a 30% reduction in duodenal polyp burden after 6 months of once-weekly treatment for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in a phase 2 clinical trial.

“If existing data are confirmed and extended through future research, this strategy has the potential for substantial impact on clinical practice by decreasing, delaying, or augmenting endoscopic and surgical interventions as the mainstay for duodenal cancer prevention in this high-risk patient population,” the study team says.

FAP is a rare genetic condition that markedly raises the risk for colorectal polyps and cancer.

“The biological pathway that leads to the development of polyps and colon cancer in patients with FAP is the same biological pathway as patients in the general population,” study investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in a news release.

“Our trial looked at opportunities to use chemoprevention agents in patients with FAP to inhibit the development of precancerous polyps in the small bowel and colorectum,” Dr. Samadder explains.

In an earlier study, the researchers found that the combination of the COX-2 inhibitor sulindac (150 mg twice daily) and erlotinib (75 mg daily) reduced duodenal polyp burden.

However, the dual-drug strategy was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate, which may limit use of the combination for chemoprevention, as reported previously.

This phase 2 study tested whether erlotinib’s AE profile would be improved with a once-weekly dosing schedule while still reducing polyp burden.

The study was first published online in the journal Gut.

In the single-arm, multicenter study, 46 adults with FAP (mean age, 44 years; 48% women) self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth one time per week for 6 months. All but four participants completed the 6-month study.

After 6 months of weekly erlotinib, duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced, with a mean percent reduction of 29.6% (95% confidence interval: –39.6% to –19.7%; P < .0001).

The benefit was observed in patients with either Spigelman 2 or Spigelman 3 duodenal polyp burden.

“Though only 12% of patients noted a decrease in Spigelman stage from 3 to 2 associated with therapy, the majority of patients (86%) had stable disease while on treatment,” the study team reports.

GI polyp number (a secondary outcome) was also decreased after 6 months of treatment with erlotinib (median decrease of 30.8%; P = .0256).

While once-weekly erlotinib was “generally” well tolerated, grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 72% of patients; two suffered grade 3 toxicity. Nonetheless, the AE rate was significantly more than the expected null hypothesis rate of 50%, the study team states.

Four patients withdrew from the study because of drug-induced AEs, which included grade 3 rash acneiform, grade 2 infections (hand, foot, and mouth disease), grade 1 fatigue, and grade 1 rash acneiform. No grade 4 AEs were reported.

The most common AE was an erlotinib-induced acneiform-like rash, which occurred in 56.5% of study patients. The rash was managed with topical cortisone and/or clindamycin. Additional erlotinib-induced AEs included oral mucositis (6.5%), diarrhea (50%), and nausea (26.1%).

Summing up, Dr. Samadder and colleagues note that FAP “portends a heritable, systemic predisposition to cancer, and the ultimate goal of cancer preventive intervention is to interrupt the development of neoplasia, need for surgery, and ultimately death from cancer, with an acceptable AE profile.”

The findings from this phase 2 trial support further study of erlotinib as “an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated gastrointestinal polyposis,” they conclude.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Samadder is a consultant for Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

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

Liver transplantation has the opportunity to cure both localized HCC as well as underlying liver cirrhosis. Donor organ shortage has led to the implementation of the Milan criteria as a way to identify patients whose tumor burden is low enough to predict a good outcome. Downstaging liver cancer to fit within Milan criteria has been controversial.

Tabrizian and colleagues undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 2645 adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant. Out of those, 2122 patients always had disease that was within the Milan criteria, 341 patients had HCC that was downstaged to fit within the Milan criteria, and 182 patients had HCC that was outside the Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation. The authors report that the 10-year post-transplant survival and recurrence rates were 61.5% and 13.3%, respectively, in those always within the Milan criteria, 52.1% and 20.6% among those whose disease was downstaged, and 43.3% and 41.1% in those whose disease was never downstaged. Characteristics that predicted recurrence after downstaging were tumor size > 7 cm at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% CI 1.20-5.75; P = .02), more than three tumors at diagnosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.22-4.50; P = .01), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response ≥ 20 ng/mL with < 50% improvement from maximum AFP before transplantation (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.14-3.46; P = .02). Additionally, patients with recurrent tumors that were surgically resected had improved 5-year post-recurrence survival (31.6% vs 7.3%; P < .001). The conclusion was that the national downstaging policies were valid and should continue.

For patients who have unresectable HCC, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Peng and colleagues reported the results of the LAUNCH phase 3 clinical trial that randomized patients to receive lenvatinib alone or lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Out of 338 patients, 170 received lenvatinib plus TACE. Unsurprisingly, the response rate was higher with the combination (54.1% vs 25.0%; P < .001); however, so was the median overall survival (17.8 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.45; P < .001), and median progression-free survival (10.6 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio 0.43; P < .001). The investigators concluded that the addition of TACE to lenvatinib had manageable toxicities, improved clinical outcomes, and could be used as a potential first-line treatment for some patients with unresectable HCC.

Finally, in patients whose HCC progressed after a single TACE treatment, the question remains whether repeated TACE is worthwhile. Zhao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 94 patients who underwent at least one TACE. Of these, 28 (29.8%) had a response to the first TACE, and these patients tended to have a longer OS compared with nonresponders (36.7 vs 21.5 months; P = .071). Of the 43 initial nonresponders who underwent a second TACE, 15 of 43 (34.9%) achieved a response and had an improved median overall survival (47.8 v. 13.6 months; P = .01), suggesting that repeat TACE may offer a benefit to some patients, even after no response to the initial treatment.

Liver transplantation has the opportunity to cure both localized HCC as well as underlying liver cirrhosis. Donor organ shortage has led to the implementation of the Milan criteria as a way to identify patients whose tumor burden is low enough to predict a good outcome. Downstaging liver cancer to fit within Milan criteria has been controversial.

Tabrizian and colleagues undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 2645 adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant. Out of those, 2122 patients always had disease that was within the Milan criteria, 341 patients had HCC that was downstaged to fit within the Milan criteria, and 182 patients had HCC that was outside the Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation. The authors report that the 10-year post-transplant survival and recurrence rates were 61.5% and 13.3%, respectively, in those always within the Milan criteria, 52.1% and 20.6% among those whose disease was downstaged, and 43.3% and 41.1% in those whose disease was never downstaged. Characteristics that predicted recurrence after downstaging were tumor size > 7 cm at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% CI 1.20-5.75; P = .02), more than three tumors at diagnosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.22-4.50; P = .01), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response ≥ 20 ng/mL with < 50% improvement from maximum AFP before transplantation (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.14-3.46; P = .02). Additionally, patients with recurrent tumors that were surgically resected had improved 5-year post-recurrence survival (31.6% vs 7.3%; P < .001). The conclusion was that the national downstaging policies were valid and should continue.

For patients who have unresectable HCC, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Peng and colleagues reported the results of the LAUNCH phase 3 clinical trial that randomized patients to receive lenvatinib alone or lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Out of 338 patients, 170 received lenvatinib plus TACE. Unsurprisingly, the response rate was higher with the combination (54.1% vs 25.0%; P < .001); however, so was the median overall survival (17.8 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.45; P < .001), and median progression-free survival (10.6 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio 0.43; P < .001). The investigators concluded that the addition of TACE to lenvatinib had manageable toxicities, improved clinical outcomes, and could be used as a potential first-line treatment for some patients with unresectable HCC.

Finally, in patients whose HCC progressed after a single TACE treatment, the question remains whether repeated TACE is worthwhile. Zhao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 94 patients who underwent at least one TACE. Of these, 28 (29.8%) had a response to the first TACE, and these patients tended to have a longer OS compared with nonresponders (36.7 vs 21.5 months; P = .071). Of the 43 initial nonresponders who underwent a second TACE, 15 of 43 (34.9%) achieved a response and had an improved median overall survival (47.8 v. 13.6 months; P = .01), suggesting that repeat TACE may offer a benefit to some patients, even after no response to the initial treatment.

Liver transplantation has the opportunity to cure both localized HCC as well as underlying liver cirrhosis. Donor organ shortage has led to the implementation of the Milan criteria as a way to identify patients whose tumor burden is low enough to predict a good outcome. Downstaging liver cancer to fit within Milan criteria has been controversial.

Tabrizian and colleagues undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 2645 adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant. Out of those, 2122 patients always had disease that was within the Milan criteria, 341 patients had HCC that was downstaged to fit within the Milan criteria, and 182 patients had HCC that was outside the Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation. The authors report that the 10-year post-transplant survival and recurrence rates were 61.5% and 13.3%, respectively, in those always within the Milan criteria, 52.1% and 20.6% among those whose disease was downstaged, and 43.3% and 41.1% in those whose disease was never downstaged. Characteristics that predicted recurrence after downstaging were tumor size > 7 cm at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% CI 1.20-5.75; P = .02), more than three tumors at diagnosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.22-4.50; P = .01), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response ≥ 20 ng/mL with < 50% improvement from maximum AFP before transplantation (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.14-3.46; P = .02). Additionally, patients with recurrent tumors that were surgically resected had improved 5-year post-recurrence survival (31.6% vs 7.3%; P < .001). The conclusion was that the national downstaging policies were valid and should continue.

For patients who have unresectable HCC, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Peng and colleagues reported the results of the LAUNCH phase 3 clinical trial that randomized patients to receive lenvatinib alone or lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Out of 338 patients, 170 received lenvatinib plus TACE. Unsurprisingly, the response rate was higher with the combination (54.1% vs 25.0%; P < .001); however, so was the median overall survival (17.8 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.45; P < .001), and median progression-free survival (10.6 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio 0.43; P < .001). The investigators concluded that the addition of TACE to lenvatinib had manageable toxicities, improved clinical outcomes, and could be used as a potential first-line treatment for some patients with unresectable HCC.

Finally, in patients whose HCC progressed after a single TACE treatment, the question remains whether repeated TACE is worthwhile. Zhao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 94 patients who underwent at least one TACE. Of these, 28 (29.8%) had a response to the first TACE, and these patients tended to have a longer OS compared with nonresponders (36.7 vs 21.5 months; P = .071). Of the 43 initial nonresponders who underwent a second TACE, 15 of 43 (34.9%) achieved a response and had an improved median overall survival (47.8 v. 13.6 months; P = .01), suggesting that repeat TACE may offer a benefit to some patients, even after no response to the initial treatment.

Gender differences in patient satisfaction with medical care have been evaluated in multiple settings; however, studies specific to the unique population of women veterans with cancer are lacking. Women are reported to value privacy, psychosocial support, and communication to a higher degree compared with men.¹ Factors affecting satisfaction include the following: discomfort in sharing treatment rooms with the opposite gender, a desire for privacy with treatment and restroom use, anatomic or illness differences, and a personal history of abuse^.2-4 Regrettably, up to 1 in 3 women in the United States are victims of sexual trauma in their lifetimes, and up to 1 in 4 women in the military are victims of military sexual trauma. Incidence in both settings is suspected to be higher due to underreporting^.5,6

Chemotherapy treatment units are often uniquely designed as an open space, with several patients sharing a treatment area. The design reduces isolation and facilitates quick nurse-patient access during potentially toxic treatments known to have frequent adverse effects. Data suggest that nursing staff prefer open models to facilitate quick patient assessments and interventions as needed; however, patients and families prefer private treatment rooms, especially among women patients or those receiving longer infusions.⁷

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient population is male predominant, comprised only of 10% female patients.8 Although the proportion of female patients in the VHA is expected to rise annually to about 16% by 2043, the low percentage of female veterans will persist for the foreseeable future.⁸ This low percentage of female veterans is reflected in the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS) cancer patient population and in the use of the chemotherapy infusion unit, which is used for the ambulatory treatment of veterans undergoing cancer therapy.

The VHA has previously explored gender differences in health care, such as with cardiovascular disease, transgender care, and access to mental health.^9-11 However, to the best of our knowledge, no analysis has explored gender differences within the outpatient cancer treatment experience. Patient satisfaction with outpatient cancer care may be magnified in the VHA setting due to the uniquely unequal gender populations, shared treatment space design, and high incidence of sexual abuse among women veterans. Given this, we aimed to identify gender-related preferences in outpatient cancer care in our chemotherapy infusion unit.

In our study, we used the terms male and female to reflect statistical data from the literature or labeled data from the electronic health record (EHR); whereas the terms men and women were used to describe and encompass the cultural implications and context of gender.¹²

Methods

This study was designated as a quality improvement (QI) project by the VAPHCS research office and Institutional Review Board in accordance with VHA policies.

The VAPHCS outpatient chemotherapy infusion unit is designed with 6 rooms for chemotherapy administration. One room is a large open space with 6 chairs for patients. The other rooms are smaller with glass dividers between the rooms, and 3 chairs inside each for patients. There are 2 private bathrooms, each gender neutral. Direct patient care is provided by physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), infusion unit nurses, and nurse coordinators. Men represent the majority of hematology and oncology physicians (13 of 20 total: 5 women fellow physicians and 2 women attending physicians), and 2 of 4 NPs. Women represent 10 of 12 infusion unit and cancer coordinator nurses. We used the VHA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) EHR, to create a list of veterans treated at the VAPHCS outpatient chemotherapy infusion unit for a 2-year period (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020).

Male and female patient lists were first generated based on CPRS categorization. We identified all female veterans treated in the ambulatory infusion unit during the study period. Male patients were then chosen at random, recording the most recent names for each year until a matched number per year compared with the female cohort was reached. Patients were recorded only once even though they had multiple infusion unit visits. Patients were excluded who were deceased, on hospice care, lost to follow-up, could not be reached by phone, refused to take the survey, had undeliverable email addresses, or lacked internet or email access.

After filing the appropriate request through the VAPHCS Institutional Review Board committee in January 2021, patient records were reviewed for demographics data, contact information, and infusion treatment history. The survey was then conducted over a 2-week period during January and February 2021. Each patient was invited by phone to complete a 25-question anonymous online survey. The survey questions were created from patient-relayed experiences, then modeled into survey questions in a format similar to other patient satisfaction questionnaires described in cancer care and gender differences.^2,13,14 The survey included self-identification of gender and was multiple choice for all except 2 questions, which allowed an open-ended response (Appendix). Only 1 answer per question was permitted. Only 1 survey link was sent to each veteran who gave permission for the survey. To protect anonymity for the small patient population, we excluded those identifying as gender nonbinary or transgender.

Statistical Analysis

Patient, disease, and treatment features are separated by male and female cohorts to reflect information from the EHR (Table 1). Survey percentages were calculated to reflect the affirmative response of the question asked (Table 2). Questions with answer options of not important, minimally important, important, or very important were calculated to reflect the sum of any importance in both cohorts. Questions with answer options of never, once, often, or every time were calculated to reflect any occurrence (sum of once, often, or every time) in both patient groups. Questions with answer options of strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree were calculated to reflect any agreement (somewhat agree and strongly agree summed together) for both groups. Comparisons between cohorts were then conducted using a Fisher exact test. A Welch t test was used to calculate the significance of the continuous variable and overall ranking of the infusion unit experience between groups.

Results 

In 2020, 414 individual patients were treated at the VAPAHCS outpatient infusion unit. Of these, 23 (5.6%) were female, and 18 agreed to take the survey. After deceased and duplicate names from 2020 were removed, another 14 eligible 2019 female patients were invited and 6 agreed to participate; 6 eligible 2018 female patients were invited and 4 agreed to take the survey (Figure). Thirty female veterans were sent a survey link and 21 (70%) responses were collected. Twenty-one male 2020 patients were contacted and 18 agreed to take the survey. After removing duplicate names and deceased individuals, 17 of 21 eligible 2019 male patients and 4 of 6 eligible 2018 patients agreed to take the survey. Five additional male veterans declined the online-based survey method. In total, 39 male veterans were reached who agreed to have the survey link emailed, and 20 (51%) total responses were collected.

Most respondents answered all questions in the survey. The most frequently skipped questions included 3 questions that were contingent on a yes answer to a prior question, and 2 openended questions asking for a write-in response. Percentages for female and male respondents were adjusted for number of responses when applicable.

Thirteen (62%) female patients were aged < 65 years, while 18 (90%) of male patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Education beyond high school was reported in 20 female and 15 male respondents. Almost all treatment administered in the infusion unit was for cancer-directed treatment, with only 1 reporting a noncancer treatment (IV iron). The most common malignancy among female patients was breast cancer (n = 11, 52%); for male patients prostate cancer (n = 4, 20%) and hematologic malignancy (n = 4, 20%) were most common. Four (19%) female and 8 (40%) male respondents reported having a metastatic diagnosis. Overall patient satisfaction ranked high with an average score of 9.1 on a 10-point scale. The mean (SD) satisfaction score for female respondents was 1 point lower than that for men: 8.7 (2.2) vs 9.6 (0.6) in men (P = .11).

Eighteen (86%) women reported a history of sexual abuse or harassment compared with 2 (10%) men (P < .001). The sexual abuse assailant was a different gender for 17 of 18 female respondents and of the same gender for both male respondents. Of those with sexual abuse history, 4 women reported feeling uncomfortable around their assailant’s gender vs no men (P = .11), but this difference was not statistically significant. Six women (29%) and 2 (10%) men reported feeling uncomfortable during clinical examinations from comments made by the clinician or during treatment administration (P = .24). Six (29%) women and no men reported that they “felt uncomfortable in the infusion unit by other patients” (P = .02). Six (29%) women and no men reported feeling unable to “voice uncomfortable experiences” to the infusion unit clinician (P = .02).

Ten (48%) women and 6 (30%) men reported emotional support when receiving treatments provided by staff of the same gender (P = .34). Eight (38%) women and 4 (20%) men noted that access to treatment with the same gender was important (P = .31). Six (29%) women and 4 (20%) men indicated that access to a sex or gender-specific restroom was important (P = .72). No gender preferences were identified in the survey questions regarding importance of private treatment room access and level of emotional support when receiving treatment with others of the same malignancy. These relationships were not statistically significant.

In addition, 2 open-ended questions were asked. Seventeen women and 14 men responded. Contact the corresponding author for more information on the questions and responses.

Discussion

Overall patient satisfaction was high among the men and women veterans with cancer who received treatment in our outpatient infusion unit; however, notable gender differences existed. Three items in the survey revealed statistically significant differences in the patient experience between men and women veterans: history of sexual abuse or harassment, uncomfortable feelings among other patients, and discomfort in relaying uncomfortable feelings to a clinician. Other items in the survey did not reach statistical significance; however, we have included discussion of the findings as they may highlight important trends and be of clinical significance.

We suspect differences among genders in patient satisfaction to be related to the high incidence of sexual abuse or harassment history reported by women, much higher at 86% than the one-third to one-fourth incidence rates estimated by the existing literature for civilian or military sexual abuse in women.5,6 These high sexual abuse or harassment rates are present in a majority of women who receive cancer-directed treatment toward a gender-specific breast malignancy, surrounded predominantly among men in a shared treatment space. Together, these factors are likely key reasons behind the differences in satisfaction observed. This sentiment is expressed in our cohort, where one-fifth of women with a sexual abuse or harassment history continue to remain uncomfortable around men, and 29% of women reporting some uncomfortable feelings during their treatment experience compared with none of the men. Additionally, 6 (29%) women vs no men felt uncomfortable in reporting an uncomfortable experience with a clinician; this represents a significant barrier in providing care for these patients.

A key gender preference among women included access to shared treatment rooms with other women and that sharing a treatment space with other women resulted in feeling more emotional support during treatments. Access to gender-specific restrooms was also preferred by women more than men. Key findings in both genders were that about half of men and women valued access to a private treatment room and would derive more emotional support when surrounded by others with the same cancer.

Prior studies on gender and patient satisfaction in general medical care and cancer care have found women value privacy more than men.^1-3 Wessels and colleagues performed an analysis of 386 patients with cancer in Europe and found gender to be the strongest influence in patient preferences within cancer care. Specifically, the highest statically significant association in care preferences among women included privacy, support/counseling/rehabilitation access, and decreased wait times.2 These findings were most pronounced in those with breast cancer compared with other malignancy type and highlights that malignancy type and gender predominance impact care satisfaction.

Traditionally a shared treatment space design has been used in outpatient chemotherapy units, similar to the design of the VAPHCS. However, recent data report on the patient preference for a private treatment space, which was especially prominent among women and those receiving longer infusions.7 In another study that evaluated 225 patients with cancer preferences in sharing a treatment space with those of a different sexual orientation or gender identify, differences were found. Both men and women had a similar level of comfort in sharing a treatment room with someone of a different sexual orientation; however, more women reported discomfort in sharing a treatment space with a transgender woman compared with men who felt more comfortable sharing a space with a transgender man.4 We noted a gender preference may be present to explain the difference. Within our cohort, women valued access to treatment with other women and derived more emotional support when with other women; however, we did not inquire about feelings in sharing a treatment space among transgender individuals or differing sexual orientation.

Gender differences for privacy and in shared room preferences may result from the lasting impacts of prior sexual abuse or harassment. A history of sexual abuse negatively impacts later medical care access and use.15 Those veterans who experienced sexual abuse/harrassment reported higher feelings of lack of control, vulnerability, depression, and pursued less medical care.^15,16 Within cancer care, these feelings are most pronounced among women with gender-specific malignancies, such as gynecologic cancers or breast cancer. Treatment, screening, and physical examinations by clinicians who are of the same gender as the sexual abuse/harassment assailant can recreate traumatic feelings.^15,16

A majority of women (n = 18, 86%) in our cohort reported a history of sexual abuse or harassment and breast malignancy was the most common cancer among women. However women represent just 5.6% of the VAPHCS infusion unit treatment population. This combination of factors may explain the reasons for women veterans’ preference for privacy during treatments, access to gender-specific restrooms, and feeling more emotional support when surrounded by other women. Strategies to help patients with a history of abuse have been described and include discussions from the clinician asking about abuse history, allowing time for the patient to express fears with an examination or test, and training on how to deliver sensitive care for those with trauma.^17,18

Quality Improvement

Project In the VAPHCS infusion unit, several low-cost interventions have been undertaken as a result of our survey findings. We presented our survey data to the VAPHCS Cancer Committee, accredited through the national American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. The committee awarded support for a yearlong QI project, including a formal framework of quarterly multidisciplinary meetings to discuss project updates, challenges, and resources. The QI project centers on education to raise awareness of survey results as well as specific interventions for improvement.

Education efforts have been applied through multiple department-wide emails, in-person education to our chemotherapy unit staff, abstract submission to national oncology conferences, and grand rounds department presentations at VAPHCS and at other VHA-affiliated university programs. Additionally, education to clinicians with specific contact information for psychology and women’s health to support mental health, trauma, and sexual abuse histories has been given to each clinician who cares for veterans in the chemotherapy unit.

We also have implemented a mandatory cancer care navigation consultation for all women veterans who have a new cancer or infusion need. The cancer care navigator has received specialized training in sensitive history-taking and provides women veterans with a direct number to reach the cancer care navigation nurse. Cancer care navigation also provides a continuum of support and referral access for psychosocial needs as indicated between infusion or health care visits. Our hope is that these resources may help offset the sentiment reflected in our cohort of women feeling unable to voice concerns to a clinician.

Other interventions underway include offering designated scheduling time each week to women so they can receive infusions in an area with other women. This may help mitigate the finding that women veterans felt more uncomfortable around other patients during infusion treatments compared with how men felt in the chemotherapy unit. We also have implemented gender-specific restrooms labeled with a sign on each bathroom door so men and women can have access to a designated restroom. Offering private or semiprivate treatment rooms is currently limited by space and capacity; however, these may offer the greatest opportunity to improve patient satisfaction, especially among women veterans. Working with the support of the VAPHCS Cancer Committee, we aim to reevaluate the impact of the education and QI efforts on gender differences and patient satisfaction at completion of the 1-year award.

Limitations

Limitations to our study include the overall small sample size. This is due to the combination of the low number of women treated at VAPHCS and many with advanced cancer who, unfortunately, have a limited overall survival and hinders accrual of a larger sample size. Other limitations included age as a possible confounder in our findings, with women representing a younger demographic compared with men. We did not collect responses on duration of infusion time, which also may impact overall satisfaction and patient experience. We also acknowledge that biologic male or female sex may not correspond to a specific individual’s gender. Use of CPRS to obtain a matched number of male and female patients through random selection relied on labeled data from the EHR. This potentially may have excluded male patients who identify as another gender that would have been captured on the anonymous survey.

Conclusions

Our findings may have broad applications to other VHA facilities and other cancer-directed treatment centers where the patient demographic and open shared infusion unit design may be similar. The study also may serve as a model of survey design and implementation from which other centers may consider improving patient satisfaction. We hope these survey results and interventions can provide insight and be used to improve patient satisfaction among all cancer patients at infusion units serving veterans and nonveterans.

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to our cancer patients who took the time to take the survey. We also are very grateful to the VHA infusion unit nurses, staff, nurse practitioners, and physicians who have embraced this project and welcomed any changes that may positively impact treatment of veterans. Also, thank you to Tia Kohs for statistical support and Sophie West for gender discussions. Last, we specifically thank Barbara, for her pursuit of better care for women and for all veterans.

Gender differences in patient satisfaction with medical care have been evaluated in multiple settings; however, studies specific to the unique population of women veterans with cancer are lacking. Women are reported to value privacy, psychosocial support, and communication to a higher degree compared with men.¹ Factors affecting satisfaction include the following: discomfort in sharing treatment rooms with the opposite gender, a desire for privacy with treatment and restroom use, anatomic or illness differences, and a personal history of abuse^.2-4 Regrettably, up to 1 in 3 women in the United States are victims of sexual trauma in their lifetimes, and up to 1 in 4 women in the military are victims of military sexual trauma. Incidence in both settings is suspected to be higher due to underreporting^.5,6

Chemotherapy treatment units are often uniquely designed as an open space, with several patients sharing a treatment area. The design reduces isolation and facilitates quick nurse-patient access during potentially toxic treatments known to have frequent adverse effects. Data suggest that nursing staff prefer open models to facilitate quick patient assessments and interventions as needed; however, patients and families prefer private treatment rooms, especially among women patients or those receiving longer infusions.⁷

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient population is male predominant, comprised only of 10% female patients.8 Although the proportion of female patients in the VHA is expected to rise annually to about 16% by 2043, the low percentage of female veterans will persist for the foreseeable future.⁸ This low percentage of female veterans is reflected in the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS) cancer patient population and in the use of the chemotherapy infusion unit, which is used for the ambulatory treatment of veterans undergoing cancer therapy.

The VHA has previously explored gender differences in health care, such as with cardiovascular disease, transgender care, and access to mental health.^9-11 However, to the best of our knowledge, no analysis has explored gender differences within the outpatient cancer treatment experience. Patient satisfaction with outpatient cancer care may be magnified in the VHA setting due to the uniquely unequal gender populations, shared treatment space design, and high incidence of sexual abuse among women veterans. Given this, we aimed to identify gender-related preferences in outpatient cancer care in our chemotherapy infusion unit.

In our study, we used the terms male and female to reflect statistical data from the literature or labeled data from the electronic health record (EHR); whereas the terms men and women were used to describe and encompass the cultural implications and context of gender.¹²

Methods

This study was designated as a quality improvement (QI) project by the VAPHCS research office and Institutional Review Board in accordance with VHA policies.

The VAPHCS outpatient chemotherapy infusion unit is designed with 6 rooms for chemotherapy administration. One room is a large open space with 6 chairs for patients. The other rooms are smaller with glass dividers between the rooms, and 3 chairs inside each for patients. There are 2 private bathrooms, each gender neutral. Direct patient care is provided by physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), infusion unit nurses, and nurse coordinators. Men represent the majority of hematology and oncology physicians (13 of 20 total: 5 women fellow physicians and 2 women attending physicians), and 2 of 4 NPs. Women represent 10 of 12 infusion unit and cancer coordinator nurses. We used the VHA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) EHR, to create a list of veterans treated at the VAPHCS outpatient chemotherapy infusion unit for a 2-year period (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020).

Male and female patient lists were first generated based on CPRS categorization. We identified all female veterans treated in the ambulatory infusion unit during the study period. Male patients were then chosen at random, recording the most recent names for each year until a matched number per year compared with the female cohort was reached. Patients were recorded only once even though they had multiple infusion unit visits. Patients were excluded who were deceased, on hospice care, lost to follow-up, could not be reached by phone, refused to take the survey, had undeliverable email addresses, or lacked internet or email access.

After filing the appropriate request through the VAPHCS Institutional Review Board committee in January 2021, patient records were reviewed for demographics data, contact information, and infusion treatment history. The survey was then conducted over a 2-week period during January and February 2021. Each patient was invited by phone to complete a 25-question anonymous online survey. The survey questions were created from patient-relayed experiences, then modeled into survey questions in a format similar to other patient satisfaction questionnaires described in cancer care and gender differences.^2,13,14 The survey included self-identification of gender and was multiple choice for all except 2 questions, which allowed an open-ended response (Appendix). Only 1 answer per question was permitted. Only 1 survey link was sent to each veteran who gave permission for the survey. To protect anonymity for the small patient population, we excluded those identifying as gender nonbinary or transgender.

Statistical Analysis

Patient, disease, and treatment features are separated by male and female cohorts to reflect information from the EHR (Table 1). Survey percentages were calculated to reflect the affirmative response of the question asked (Table 2). Questions with answer options of not important, minimally important, important, or very important were calculated to reflect the sum of any importance in both cohorts. Questions with answer options of never, once, often, or every time were calculated to reflect any occurrence (sum of once, often, or every time) in both patient groups. Questions with answer options of strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree were calculated to reflect any agreement (somewhat agree and strongly agree summed together) for both groups. Comparisons between cohorts were then conducted using a Fisher exact test. A Welch t test was used to calculate the significance of the continuous variable and overall ranking of the infusion unit experience between groups.

Results 

In 2020, 414 individual patients were treated at the VAPAHCS outpatient infusion unit. Of these, 23 (5.6%) were female, and 18 agreed to take the survey. After deceased and duplicate names from 2020 were removed, another 14 eligible 2019 female patients were invited and 6 agreed to participate; 6 eligible 2018 female patients were invited and 4 agreed to take the survey (Figure). Thirty female veterans were sent a survey link and 21 (70%) responses were collected. Twenty-one male 2020 patients were contacted and 18 agreed to take the survey. After removing duplicate names and deceased individuals, 17 of 21 eligible 2019 male patients and 4 of 6 eligible 2018 patients agreed to take the survey. Five additional male veterans declined the online-based survey method. In total, 39 male veterans were reached who agreed to have the survey link emailed, and 20 (51%) total responses were collected.

Most respondents answered all questions in the survey. The most frequently skipped questions included 3 questions that were contingent on a yes answer to a prior question, and 2 openended questions asking for a write-in response. Percentages for female and male respondents were adjusted for number of responses when applicable.

Thirteen (62%) female patients were aged < 65 years, while 18 (90%) of male patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Education beyond high school was reported in 20 female and 15 male respondents. Almost all treatment administered in the infusion unit was for cancer-directed treatment, with only 1 reporting a noncancer treatment (IV iron). The most common malignancy among female patients was breast cancer (n = 11, 52%); for male patients prostate cancer (n = 4, 20%) and hematologic malignancy (n = 4, 20%) were most common. Four (19%) female and 8 (40%) male respondents reported having a metastatic diagnosis. Overall patient satisfaction ranked high with an average score of 9.1 on a 10-point scale. The mean (SD) satisfaction score for female respondents was 1 point lower than that for men: 8.7 (2.2) vs 9.6 (0.6) in men (P = .11).

Eighteen (86%) women reported a history of sexual abuse or harassment compared with 2 (10%) men (P < .001). The sexual abuse assailant was a different gender for 17 of 18 female respondents and of the same gender for both male respondents. Of those with sexual abuse history, 4 women reported feeling uncomfortable around their assailant’s gender vs no men (P = .11), but this difference was not statistically significant. Six women (29%) and 2 (10%) men reported feeling uncomfortable during clinical examinations from comments made by the clinician or during treatment administration (P = .24). Six (29%) women and no men reported that they “felt uncomfortable in the infusion unit by other patients” (P = .02). Six (29%) women and no men reported feeling unable to “voice uncomfortable experiences” to the infusion unit clinician (P = .02).

Ten (48%) women and 6 (30%) men reported emotional support when receiving treatments provided by staff of the same gender (P = .34). Eight (38%) women and 4 (20%) men noted that access to treatment with the same gender was important (P = .31). Six (29%) women and 4 (20%) men indicated that access to a sex or gender-specific restroom was important (P = .72). No gender preferences were identified in the survey questions regarding importance of private treatment room access and level of emotional support when receiving treatment with others of the same malignancy. These relationships were not statistically significant.

In addition, 2 open-ended questions were asked. Seventeen women and 14 men responded. Contact the corresponding author for more information on the questions and responses.

Discussion

Overall patient satisfaction was high among the men and women veterans with cancer who received treatment in our outpatient infusion unit; however, notable gender differences existed. Three items in the survey revealed statistically significant differences in the patient experience between men and women veterans: history of sexual abuse or harassment, uncomfortable feelings among other patients, and discomfort in relaying uncomfortable feelings to a clinician. Other items in the survey did not reach statistical significance; however, we have included discussion of the findings as they may highlight important trends and be of clinical significance.

We suspect differences among genders in patient satisfaction to be related to the high incidence of sexual abuse or harassment history reported by women, much higher at 86% than the one-third to one-fourth incidence rates estimated by the existing literature for civilian or military sexual abuse in women.5,6 These high sexual abuse or harassment rates are present in a majority of women who receive cancer-directed treatment toward a gender-specific breast malignancy, surrounded predominantly among men in a shared treatment space. Together, these factors are likely key reasons behind the differences in satisfaction observed. This sentiment is expressed in our cohort, where one-fifth of women with a sexual abuse or harassment history continue to remain uncomfortable around men, and 29% of women reporting some uncomfortable feelings during their treatment experience compared with none of the men. Additionally, 6 (29%) women vs no men felt uncomfortable in reporting an uncomfortable experience with a clinician; this represents a significant barrier in providing care for these patients.

A key gender preference among women included access to shared treatment rooms with other women and that sharing a treatment space with other women resulted in feeling more emotional support during treatments. Access to gender-specific restrooms was also preferred by women more than men. Key findings in both genders were that about half of men and women valued access to a private treatment room and would derive more emotional support when surrounded by others with the same cancer.

Prior studies on gender and patient satisfaction in general medical care and cancer care have found women value privacy more than men.^1-3 Wessels and colleagues performed an analysis of 386 patients with cancer in Europe and found gender to be the strongest influence in patient preferences within cancer care. Specifically, the highest statically significant association in care preferences among women included privacy, support/counseling/rehabilitation access, and decreased wait times.2 These findings were most pronounced in those with breast cancer compared with other malignancy type and highlights that malignancy type and gender predominance impact care satisfaction.

Traditionally a shared treatment space design has been used in outpatient chemotherapy units, similar to the design of the VAPHCS. However, recent data report on the patient preference for a private treatment space, which was especially prominent among women and those receiving longer infusions.7 In another study that evaluated 225 patients with cancer preferences in sharing a treatment space with those of a different sexual orientation or gender identify, differences were found. Both men and women had a similar level of comfort in sharing a treatment room with someone of a different sexual orientation; however, more women reported discomfort in sharing a treatment space with a transgender woman compared with men who felt more comfortable sharing a space with a transgender man.4 We noted a gender preference may be present to explain the difference. Within our cohort, women valued access to treatment with other women and derived more emotional support when with other women; however, we did not inquire about feelings in sharing a treatment space among transgender individuals or differing sexual orientation.

Gender differences for privacy and in shared room preferences may result from the lasting impacts of prior sexual abuse or harassment. A history of sexual abuse negatively impacts later medical care access and use.15 Those veterans who experienced sexual abuse/harrassment reported higher feelings of lack of control, vulnerability, depression, and pursued less medical care.^15,16 Within cancer care, these feelings are most pronounced among women with gender-specific malignancies, such as gynecologic cancers or breast cancer. Treatment, screening, and physical examinations by clinicians who are of the same gender as the sexual abuse/harassment assailant can recreate traumatic feelings.^15,16

A majority of women (n = 18, 86%) in our cohort reported a history of sexual abuse or harassment and breast malignancy was the most common cancer among women. However women represent just 5.6% of the VAPHCS infusion unit treatment population. This combination of factors may explain the reasons for women veterans’ preference for privacy during treatments, access to gender-specific restrooms, and feeling more emotional support when surrounded by other women. Strategies to help patients with a history of abuse have been described and include discussions from the clinician asking about abuse history, allowing time for the patient to express fears with an examination or test, and training on how to deliver sensitive care for those with trauma.^17,18

Quality Improvement

Project In the VAPHCS infusion unit, several low-cost interventions have been undertaken as a result of our survey findings. We presented our survey data to the VAPHCS Cancer Committee, accredited through the national American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. The committee awarded support for a yearlong QI project, including a formal framework of quarterly multidisciplinary meetings to discuss project updates, challenges, and resources. The QI project centers on education to raise awareness of survey results as well as specific interventions for improvement.

Education efforts have been applied through multiple department-wide emails, in-person education to our chemotherapy unit staff, abstract submission to national oncology conferences, and grand rounds department presentations at VAPHCS and at other VHA-affiliated university programs. Additionally, education to clinicians with specific contact information for psychology and women’s health to support mental health, trauma, and sexual abuse histories has been given to each clinician who cares for veterans in the chemotherapy unit.

We also have implemented a mandatory cancer care navigation consultation for all women veterans who have a new cancer or infusion need. The cancer care navigator has received specialized training in sensitive history-taking and provides women veterans with a direct number to reach the cancer care navigation nurse. Cancer care navigation also provides a continuum of support and referral access for psychosocial needs as indicated between infusion or health care visits. Our hope is that these resources may help offset the sentiment reflected in our cohort of women feeling unable to voice concerns to a clinician.

Other interventions underway include offering designated scheduling time each week to women so they can receive infusions in an area with other women. This may help mitigate the finding that women veterans felt more uncomfortable around other patients during infusion treatments compared with how men felt in the chemotherapy unit. We also have implemented gender-specific restrooms labeled with a sign on each bathroom door so men and women can have access to a designated restroom. Offering private or semiprivate treatment rooms is currently limited by space and capacity; however, these may offer the greatest opportunity to improve patient satisfaction, especially among women veterans. Working with the support of the VAPHCS Cancer Committee, we aim to reevaluate the impact of the education and QI efforts on gender differences and patient satisfaction at completion of the 1-year award.

Limitations

Limitations to our study include the overall small sample size. This is due to the combination of the low number of women treated at VAPHCS and many with advanced cancer who, unfortunately, have a limited overall survival and hinders accrual of a larger sample size. Other limitations included age as a possible confounder in our findings, with women representing a younger demographic compared with men. We did not collect responses on duration of infusion time, which also may impact overall satisfaction and patient experience. We also acknowledge that biologic male or female sex may not correspond to a specific individual’s gender. Use of CPRS to obtain a matched number of male and female patients through random selection relied on labeled data from the EHR. This potentially may have excluded male patients who identify as another gender that would have been captured on the anonymous survey.

Conclusions

Our findings may have broad applications to other VHA facilities and other cancer-directed treatment centers where the patient demographic and open shared infusion unit design may be similar. The study also may serve as a model of survey design and implementation from which other centers may consider improving patient satisfaction. We hope these survey results and interventions can provide insight and be used to improve patient satisfaction among all cancer patients at infusion units serving veterans and nonveterans.

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to our cancer patients who took the time to take the survey. We also are very grateful to the VHA infusion unit nurses, staff, nurse practitioners, and physicians who have embraced this project and welcomed any changes that may positively impact treatment of veterans. Also, thank you to Tia Kohs for statistical support and Sophie West for gender discussions. Last, we specifically thank Barbara, for her pursuit of better care for women and for all veterans.

Gender differences in patient satisfaction with medical care have been evaluated in multiple settings; however, studies specific to the unique population of women veterans with cancer are lacking. Women are reported to value privacy, psychosocial support, and communication to a higher degree compared with men.¹ Factors affecting satisfaction include the following: discomfort in sharing treatment rooms with the opposite gender, a desire for privacy with treatment and restroom use, anatomic or illness differences, and a personal history of abuse^.2-4 Regrettably, up to 1 in 3 women in the United States are victims of sexual trauma in their lifetimes, and up to 1 in 4 women in the military are victims of military sexual trauma. Incidence in both settings is suspected to be higher due to underreporting^.5,6

Chemotherapy treatment units are often uniquely designed as an open space, with several patients sharing a treatment area. The design reduces isolation and facilitates quick nurse-patient access during potentially toxic treatments known to have frequent adverse effects. Data suggest that nursing staff prefer open models to facilitate quick patient assessments and interventions as needed; however, patients and families prefer private treatment rooms, especially among women patients or those receiving longer infusions.⁷

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient population is male predominant, comprised only of 10% female patients.8 Although the proportion of female patients in the VHA is expected to rise annually to about 16% by 2043, the low percentage of female veterans will persist for the foreseeable future.⁸ This low percentage of female veterans is reflected in the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS) cancer patient population and in the use of the chemotherapy infusion unit, which is used for the ambulatory treatment of veterans undergoing cancer therapy.

The VHA has previously explored gender differences in health care, such as with cardiovascular disease, transgender care, and access to mental health.^9-11 However, to the best of our knowledge, no analysis has explored gender differences within the outpatient cancer treatment experience. Patient satisfaction with outpatient cancer care may be magnified in the VHA setting due to the uniquely unequal gender populations, shared treatment space design, and high incidence of sexual abuse among women veterans. Given this, we aimed to identify gender-related preferences in outpatient cancer care in our chemotherapy infusion unit.

In our study, we used the terms male and female to reflect statistical data from the literature or labeled data from the electronic health record (EHR); whereas the terms men and women were used to describe and encompass the cultural implications and context of gender.¹²

Methods

This study was designated as a quality improvement (QI) project by the VAPHCS research office and Institutional Review Board in accordance with VHA policies.

The VAPHCS outpatient chemotherapy infusion unit is designed with 6 rooms for chemotherapy administration. One room is a large open space with 6 chairs for patients. The other rooms are smaller with glass dividers between the rooms, and 3 chairs inside each for patients. There are 2 private bathrooms, each gender neutral. Direct patient care is provided by physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), infusion unit nurses, and nurse coordinators. Men represent the majority of hematology and oncology physicians (13 of 20 total: 5 women fellow physicians and 2 women attending physicians), and 2 of 4 NPs. Women represent 10 of 12 infusion unit and cancer coordinator nurses. We used the VHA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) EHR, to create a list of veterans treated at the VAPHCS outpatient chemotherapy infusion unit for a 2-year period (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020).

Male and female patient lists were first generated based on CPRS categorization. We identified all female veterans treated in the ambulatory infusion unit during the study period. Male patients were then chosen at random, recording the most recent names for each year until a matched number per year compared with the female cohort was reached. Patients were recorded only once even though they had multiple infusion unit visits. Patients were excluded who were deceased, on hospice care, lost to follow-up, could not be reached by phone, refused to take the survey, had undeliverable email addresses, or lacked internet or email access.

After filing the appropriate request through the VAPHCS Institutional Review Board committee in January 2021, patient records were reviewed for demographics data, contact information, and infusion treatment history. The survey was then conducted over a 2-week period during January and February 2021. Each patient was invited by phone to complete a 25-question anonymous online survey. The survey questions were created from patient-relayed experiences, then modeled into survey questions in a format similar to other patient satisfaction questionnaires described in cancer care and gender differences.^2,13,14 The survey included self-identification of gender and was multiple choice for all except 2 questions, which allowed an open-ended response (Appendix). Only 1 answer per question was permitted. Only 1 survey link was sent to each veteran who gave permission for the survey. To protect anonymity for the small patient population, we excluded those identifying as gender nonbinary or transgender.

Statistical Analysis

Patient, disease, and treatment features are separated by male and female cohorts to reflect information from the EHR (Table 1). Survey percentages were calculated to reflect the affirmative response of the question asked (Table 2). Questions with answer options of not important, minimally important, important, or very important were calculated to reflect the sum of any importance in both cohorts. Questions with answer options of never, once, often, or every time were calculated to reflect any occurrence (sum of once, often, or every time) in both patient groups. Questions with answer options of strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree were calculated to reflect any agreement (somewhat agree and strongly agree summed together) for both groups. Comparisons between cohorts were then conducted using a Fisher exact test. A Welch t test was used to calculate the significance of the continuous variable and overall ranking of the infusion unit experience between groups.

Results 

In 2020, 414 individual patients were treated at the VAPAHCS outpatient infusion unit. Of these, 23 (5.6%) were female, and 18 agreed to take the survey. After deceased and duplicate names from 2020 were removed, another 14 eligible 2019 female patients were invited and 6 agreed to participate; 6 eligible 2018 female patients were invited and 4 agreed to take the survey (Figure). Thirty female veterans were sent a survey link and 21 (70%) responses were collected. Twenty-one male 2020 patients were contacted and 18 agreed to take the survey. After removing duplicate names and deceased individuals, 17 of 21 eligible 2019 male patients and 4 of 6 eligible 2018 patients agreed to take the survey. Five additional male veterans declined the online-based survey method. In total, 39 male veterans were reached who agreed to have the survey link emailed, and 20 (51%) total responses were collected.

Most respondents answered all questions in the survey. The most frequently skipped questions included 3 questions that were contingent on a yes answer to a prior question, and 2 openended questions asking for a write-in response. Percentages for female and male respondents were adjusted for number of responses when applicable.

Thirteen (62%) female patients were aged < 65 years, while 18 (90%) of male patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Education beyond high school was reported in 20 female and 15 male respondents. Almost all treatment administered in the infusion unit was for cancer-directed treatment, with only 1 reporting a noncancer treatment (IV iron). The most common malignancy among female patients was breast cancer (n = 11, 52%); for male patients prostate cancer (n = 4, 20%) and hematologic malignancy (n = 4, 20%) were most common. Four (19%) female and 8 (40%) male respondents reported having a metastatic diagnosis. Overall patient satisfaction ranked high with an average score of 9.1 on a 10-point scale. The mean (SD) satisfaction score for female respondents was 1 point lower than that for men: 8.7 (2.2) vs 9.6 (0.6) in men (P = .11).

Eighteen (86%) women reported a history of sexual abuse or harassment compared with 2 (10%) men (P < .001). The sexual abuse assailant was a different gender for 17 of 18 female respondents and of the same gender for both male respondents. Of those with sexual abuse history, 4 women reported feeling uncomfortable around their assailant’s gender vs no men (P = .11), but this difference was not statistically significant. Six women (29%) and 2 (10%) men reported feeling uncomfortable during clinical examinations from comments made by the clinician or during treatment administration (P = .24). Six (29%) women and no men reported that they “felt uncomfortable in the infusion unit by other patients” (P = .02). Six (29%) women and no men reported feeling unable to “voice uncomfortable experiences” to the infusion unit clinician (P = .02).

Ten (48%) women and 6 (30%) men reported emotional support when receiving treatments provided by staff of the same gender (P = .34). Eight (38%) women and 4 (20%) men noted that access to treatment with the same gender was important (P = .31). Six (29%) women and 4 (20%) men indicated that access to a sex or gender-specific restroom was important (P = .72). No gender preferences were identified in the survey questions regarding importance of private treatment room access and level of emotional support when receiving treatment with others of the same malignancy. These relationships were not statistically significant.

In addition, 2 open-ended questions were asked. Seventeen women and 14 men responded. Contact the corresponding author for more information on the questions and responses.

Discussion

Overall patient satisfaction was high among the men and women veterans with cancer who received treatment in our outpatient infusion unit; however, notable gender differences existed. Three items in the survey revealed statistically significant differences in the patient experience between men and women veterans: history of sexual abuse or harassment, uncomfortable feelings among other patients, and discomfort in relaying uncomfortable feelings to a clinician. Other items in the survey did not reach statistical significance; however, we have included discussion of the findings as they may highlight important trends and be of clinical significance.

We suspect differences among genders in patient satisfaction to be related to the high incidence of sexual abuse or harassment history reported by women, much higher at 86% than the one-third to one-fourth incidence rates estimated by the existing literature for civilian or military sexual abuse in women.5,6 These high sexual abuse or harassment rates are present in a majority of women who receive cancer-directed treatment toward a gender-specific breast malignancy, surrounded predominantly among men in a shared treatment space. Together, these factors are likely key reasons behind the differences in satisfaction observed. This sentiment is expressed in our cohort, where one-fifth of women with a sexual abuse or harassment history continue to remain uncomfortable around men, and 29% of women reporting some uncomfortable feelings during their treatment experience compared with none of the men. Additionally, 6 (29%) women vs no men felt uncomfortable in reporting an uncomfortable experience with a clinician; this represents a significant barrier in providing care for these patients.

A key gender preference among women included access to shared treatment rooms with other women and that sharing a treatment space with other women resulted in feeling more emotional support during treatments. Access to gender-specific restrooms was also preferred by women more than men. Key findings in both genders were that about half of men and women valued access to a private treatment room and would derive more emotional support when surrounded by others with the same cancer.

Prior studies on gender and patient satisfaction in general medical care and cancer care have found women value privacy more than men.^1-3 Wessels and colleagues performed an analysis of 386 patients with cancer in Europe and found gender to be the strongest influence in patient preferences within cancer care. Specifically, the highest statically significant association in care preferences among women included privacy, support/counseling/rehabilitation access, and decreased wait times.2 These findings were most pronounced in those with breast cancer compared with other malignancy type and highlights that malignancy type and gender predominance impact care satisfaction.

Traditionally a shared treatment space design has been used in outpatient chemotherapy units, similar to the design of the VAPHCS. However, recent data report on the patient preference for a private treatment space, which was especially prominent among women and those receiving longer infusions.7 In another study that evaluated 225 patients with cancer preferences in sharing a treatment space with those of a different sexual orientation or gender identify, differences were found. Both men and women had a similar level of comfort in sharing a treatment room with someone of a different sexual orientation; however, more women reported discomfort in sharing a treatment space with a transgender woman compared with men who felt more comfortable sharing a space with a transgender man.4 We noted a gender preference may be present to explain the difference. Within our cohort, women valued access to treatment with other women and derived more emotional support when with other women; however, we did not inquire about feelings in sharing a treatment space among transgender individuals or differing sexual orientation.

Gender differences for privacy and in shared room preferences may result from the lasting impacts of prior sexual abuse or harassment. A history of sexual abuse negatively impacts later medical care access and use.15 Those veterans who experienced sexual abuse/harrassment reported higher feelings of lack of control, vulnerability, depression, and pursued less medical care.^15,16 Within cancer care, these feelings are most pronounced among women with gender-specific malignancies, such as gynecologic cancers or breast cancer. Treatment, screening, and physical examinations by clinicians who are of the same gender as the sexual abuse/harassment assailant can recreate traumatic feelings.^15,16

A majority of women (n = 18, 86%) in our cohort reported a history of sexual abuse or harassment and breast malignancy was the most common cancer among women. However women represent just 5.6% of the VAPHCS infusion unit treatment population. This combination of factors may explain the reasons for women veterans’ preference for privacy during treatments, access to gender-specific restrooms, and feeling more emotional support when surrounded by other women. Strategies to help patients with a history of abuse have been described and include discussions from the clinician asking about abuse history, allowing time for the patient to express fears with an examination or test, and training on how to deliver sensitive care for those with trauma.^17,18

Quality Improvement

Project In the VAPHCS infusion unit, several low-cost interventions have been undertaken as a result of our survey findings. We presented our survey data to the VAPHCS Cancer Committee, accredited through the national American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. The committee awarded support for a yearlong QI project, including a formal framework of quarterly multidisciplinary meetings to discuss project updates, challenges, and resources. The QI project centers on education to raise awareness of survey results as well as specific interventions for improvement.

Education efforts have been applied through multiple department-wide emails, in-person education to our chemotherapy unit staff, abstract submission to national oncology conferences, and grand rounds department presentations at VAPHCS and at other VHA-affiliated university programs. Additionally, education to clinicians with specific contact information for psychology and women’s health to support mental health, trauma, and sexual abuse histories has been given to each clinician who cares for veterans in the chemotherapy unit.

We also have implemented a mandatory cancer care navigation consultation for all women veterans who have a new cancer or infusion need. The cancer care navigator has received specialized training in sensitive history-taking and provides women veterans with a direct number to reach the cancer care navigation nurse. Cancer care navigation also provides a continuum of support and referral access for psychosocial needs as indicated between infusion or health care visits. Our hope is that these resources may help offset the sentiment reflected in our cohort of women feeling unable to voice concerns to a clinician.

Other interventions underway include offering designated scheduling time each week to women so they can receive infusions in an area with other women. This may help mitigate the finding that women veterans felt more uncomfortable around other patients during infusion treatments compared with how men felt in the chemotherapy unit. We also have implemented gender-specific restrooms labeled with a sign on each bathroom door so men and women can have access to a designated restroom. Offering private or semiprivate treatment rooms is currently limited by space and capacity; however, these may offer the greatest opportunity to improve patient satisfaction, especially among women veterans. Working with the support of the VAPHCS Cancer Committee, we aim to reevaluate the impact of the education and QI efforts on gender differences and patient satisfaction at completion of the 1-year award.

Limitations

Limitations to our study include the overall small sample size. This is due to the combination of the low number of women treated at VAPHCS and many with advanced cancer who, unfortunately, have a limited overall survival and hinders accrual of a larger sample size. Other limitations included age as a possible confounder in our findings, with women representing a younger demographic compared with men. We did not collect responses on duration of infusion time, which also may impact overall satisfaction and patient experience. We also acknowledge that biologic male or female sex may not correspond to a specific individual’s gender. Use of CPRS to obtain a matched number of male and female patients through random selection relied on labeled data from the EHR. This potentially may have excluded male patients who identify as another gender that would have been captured on the anonymous survey.

Conclusions

Our findings may have broad applications to other VHA facilities and other cancer-directed treatment centers where the patient demographic and open shared infusion unit design may be similar. The study also may serve as a model of survey design and implementation from which other centers may consider improving patient satisfaction. We hope these survey results and interventions can provide insight and be used to improve patient satisfaction among all cancer patients at infusion units serving veterans and nonveterans.

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to our cancer patients who took the time to take the survey. We also are very grateful to the VHA infusion unit nurses, staff, nurse practitioners, and physicians who have embraced this project and welcomed any changes that may positively impact treatment of veterans. Also, thank you to Tia Kohs for statistical support and Sophie West for gender discussions. Last, we specifically thank Barbara, for her pursuit of better care for women and for all veterans.