Each year, 40,000 to 98,000 deaths occur due to medical errors.¹ The Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS), published in 1991, found that 3.7% of hospitalized patients were harmed by adverse events and 1% were harmed by adverse events due to negligence.² The latest HMPS showed that, despite significant improvements in patient safety over the past 3 decades, patient safety challenges persist. This study found that inpatient care leads to harm in nearly a quarter of patients, and that 1 in 4 of these adverse events are preventable.³

Since the first HMPS study was published, efforts to improve patient safety have focused on identifying causes of medical error and the design and implementation of interventions to mitigate errors. Factors contributing to medical errors have been well documented: the complexity of care delivery from inpatient to outpatient settings, with transitions of care and extensive use of medications; multiple comorbidities; and the fragmentation of care across multiple systems and specialties. Although most errors are related to process or system failure, accountability of each practitioner and clinician is essential to promoting a culture of safety. Many medical errors are preventable through multifaceted approaches employed throughout the phases of the care,⁴ with medication errors, both prescribing and administration, and diagnostic and treatment errors encompassing most risk prevention areas. Broadly, safety efforts should emphasize building a culture of safety where all safety events are reported, including near-miss events.

Two articles in this issue of JCOM address key elements of patient safety: building a safety culture and diagnostic error. Merchant et al⁵ report on an initiative designed to promote a safety culture by recognizing and rewarding staff who identify and report near misses. The tiered awards program they designed led to significantly increased staff participation in the safety awards nomination process and was associated with increased reporting of actual and close-call events and greater attendance at monthly safety forums. Goyal et al,⁶ noting that diagnostic error rates in hospitalized patients remain unacceptably high, provide a concise update on diagnostic error among inpatients, focusing on issues related to defining and measuring diagnostic errors and current strategies to improve diagnostic safety in hospitalized patients. In a third article, Sathi et al report on efforts to teach quality improvement (QI) methods to internal medicine trainees; their project increased residents’ knowledge of their patient panels and comfort with QI approaches and led to improved patient outcomes.

Major progress has been made to improve health care safety since the first HMPS was published. However, the latest HMPS shows that patient safety efforts must continue, given the persistent risk for patient harm in the current health care delivery system. Safety, along with clear accountability for identifying, reporting, and addressing errors, should be a top priority for health care systems throughout the preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic phases of care.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

Each year, 40,000 to 98,000 deaths occur due to medical errors.¹ The Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS), published in 1991, found that 3.7% of hospitalized patients were harmed by adverse events and 1% were harmed by adverse events due to negligence.² The latest HMPS showed that, despite significant improvements in patient safety over the past 3 decades, patient safety challenges persist. This study found that inpatient care leads to harm in nearly a quarter of patients, and that 1 in 4 of these adverse events are preventable.³

Since the first HMPS study was published, efforts to improve patient safety have focused on identifying causes of medical error and the design and implementation of interventions to mitigate errors. Factors contributing to medical errors have been well documented: the complexity of care delivery from inpatient to outpatient settings, with transitions of care and extensive use of medications; multiple comorbidities; and the fragmentation of care across multiple systems and specialties. Although most errors are related to process or system failure, accountability of each practitioner and clinician is essential to promoting a culture of safety. Many medical errors are preventable through multifaceted approaches employed throughout the phases of the care,⁴ with medication errors, both prescribing and administration, and diagnostic and treatment errors encompassing most risk prevention areas. Broadly, safety efforts should emphasize building a culture of safety where all safety events are reported, including near-miss events.

Two articles in this issue of JCOM address key elements of patient safety: building a safety culture and diagnostic error. Merchant et al⁵ report on an initiative designed to promote a safety culture by recognizing and rewarding staff who identify and report near misses. The tiered awards program they designed led to significantly increased staff participation in the safety awards nomination process and was associated with increased reporting of actual and close-call events and greater attendance at monthly safety forums. Goyal et al,⁶ noting that diagnostic error rates in hospitalized patients remain unacceptably high, provide a concise update on diagnostic error among inpatients, focusing on issues related to defining and measuring diagnostic errors and current strategies to improve diagnostic safety in hospitalized patients. In a third article, Sathi et al report on efforts to teach quality improvement (QI) methods to internal medicine trainees; their project increased residents’ knowledge of their patient panels and comfort with QI approaches and led to improved patient outcomes.

Major progress has been made to improve health care safety since the first HMPS was published. However, the latest HMPS shows that patient safety efforts must continue, given the persistent risk for patient harm in the current health care delivery system. Safety, along with clear accountability for identifying, reporting, and addressing errors, should be a top priority for health care systems throughout the preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic phases of care.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

Each year, 40,000 to 98,000 deaths occur due to medical errors.¹ The Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS), published in 1991, found that 3.7% of hospitalized patients were harmed by adverse events and 1% were harmed by adverse events due to negligence.² The latest HMPS showed that, despite significant improvements in patient safety over the past 3 decades, patient safety challenges persist. This study found that inpatient care leads to harm in nearly a quarter of patients, and that 1 in 4 of these adverse events are preventable.³

Since the first HMPS study was published, efforts to improve patient safety have focused on identifying causes of medical error and the design and implementation of interventions to mitigate errors. Factors contributing to medical errors have been well documented: the complexity of care delivery from inpatient to outpatient settings, with transitions of care and extensive use of medications; multiple comorbidities; and the fragmentation of care across multiple systems and specialties. Although most errors are related to process or system failure, accountability of each practitioner and clinician is essential to promoting a culture of safety. Many medical errors are preventable through multifaceted approaches employed throughout the phases of the care,⁴ with medication errors, both prescribing and administration, and diagnostic and treatment errors encompassing most risk prevention areas. Broadly, safety efforts should emphasize building a culture of safety where all safety events are reported, including near-miss events.

Two articles in this issue of JCOM address key elements of patient safety: building a safety culture and diagnostic error. Merchant et al⁵ report on an initiative designed to promote a safety culture by recognizing and rewarding staff who identify and report near misses. The tiered awards program they designed led to significantly increased staff participation in the safety awards nomination process and was associated with increased reporting of actual and close-call events and greater attendance at monthly safety forums. Goyal et al,⁶ noting that diagnostic error rates in hospitalized patients remain unacceptably high, provide a concise update on diagnostic error among inpatients, focusing on issues related to defining and measuring diagnostic errors and current strategies to improve diagnostic safety in hospitalized patients. In a third article, Sathi et al report on efforts to teach quality improvement (QI) methods to internal medicine trainees; their project increased residents’ knowledge of their patient panels and comfort with QI approaches and led to improved patient outcomes.

Major progress has been made to improve health care safety since the first HMPS was published. However, the latest HMPS shows that patient safety efforts must continue, given the persistent risk for patient harm in the current health care delivery system. Safety, along with clear accountability for identifying, reporting, and addressing errors, should be a top priority for health care systems throughout the preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic phases of care.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.

It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.

Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.

In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.

When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.

“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”

Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.

“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”

The conversation turned a few heads in her office.

“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.

She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”

A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”

The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”

“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.

And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
 

The Twitter storm

After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.

Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”

The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.

“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.

The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.

Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.

According to health policy expert Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, getting patients the cancer care they need should not require an oncologist venting on social media. Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”

But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”

In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.

In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.

“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”

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

“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.

It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.

Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.

In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.

When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.

“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”

Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.

“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”

The conversation turned a few heads in her office.

“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.

She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”

A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”

The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”

“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.

And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
 

The Twitter storm

After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.

Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”

The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.

“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.

The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.

Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.

According to health policy expert Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, getting patients the cancer care they need should not require an oncologist venting on social media. Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”

But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”

In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.

In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.

“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”

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

“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.

It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.

Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.

In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.

When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.

“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”

Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.

“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”

The conversation turned a few heads in her office.

“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.

She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”

A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”

The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”

“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.

And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
 

The Twitter storm

After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.

Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”

The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.

“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.

The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.

Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.

According to health policy expert Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, getting patients the cancer care they need should not require an oncologist venting on social media. Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”

But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”

In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.

In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.

“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”

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

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

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

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

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

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

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

(Reuters) – President Joe Biden’s administration is urging a judge to reject a request by abortion opponents for a court order withdrawing federal approval for the drug used in medication abortions – which account for more than half of U.S. abortions – citing potential dangers to women seeking to end their pregnancies.
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s filing to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, made available online on Tuesday, came in a lawsuit in Texas by antiabortion groups challenging the agency’s approval of the drug mifepristone in 2000 for medication abortion.

“The public interest would be dramatically harmed by effectively withdrawing from the marketplace a safe and effective drug that has lawfully been on the market for 22 years,” lawyers for the FDA said in the filing to Mr. Kacsmaryk, who is based in Amarillo.

Mifepristone is available under the brand name Mifeprex and as a generic. Used in conjunction with another drug, it is approved to terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy. The FDA on Jan. 3 said the government for the first time will allow mifepristone to be dispensed at retail pharmacies.

Medication abortion has drawn increasing attention since the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. Nearly all abortions, including medication abortions, are now banned in 12 states, and 16 states that permit some abortions also had laws restricting medication abortion as of November, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

“No abortion is safe, and chemical abortions are particularly dangerous,” said Julie Blake, senior counsel at the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The FDA, by approving chemical abortion drugs for home use, puts a woman or girl’s life at risk.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association said in a joint letter to the Biden administration last June that “robust evidence exists regarding the safety of mifepristone for medication-induced abortion.”

Antiabortion groups including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists sued the FDA in November, saying the agency improperly used an accelerated process to approve mifepristone and failed to study its risks for minors adequately.

In its court filing, the FDA said there was no basis for second-guessing the FDA’s judgment. The FDA said that pulling the drug would force patients seeking abortions in many cases to undergo unnecessary and more invasive surgical abortion. That would result in longer wait times and would carry risks for some patients including those intolerant to anesthesia, the FDA added.

In support of its position, the agency submitted declarations from abortion providers. For example, nonprofit Maine Family Planning said it would have to eliminate abortion services at 17 of its 18 clinics if mifepristone were no longer available.

Mifeprex maker Danco Laboratories on Friday also asked to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its ability to sell the drug.

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

(Reuters) – President Joe Biden’s administration is urging a judge to reject a request by abortion opponents for a court order withdrawing federal approval for the drug used in medication abortions – which account for more than half of U.S. abortions – citing potential dangers to women seeking to end their pregnancies.
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s filing to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, made available online on Tuesday, came in a lawsuit in Texas by antiabortion groups challenging the agency’s approval of the drug mifepristone in 2000 for medication abortion.

“The public interest would be dramatically harmed by effectively withdrawing from the marketplace a safe and effective drug that has lawfully been on the market for 22 years,” lawyers for the FDA said in the filing to Mr. Kacsmaryk, who is based in Amarillo.

Mifepristone is available under the brand name Mifeprex and as a generic. Used in conjunction with another drug, it is approved to terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy. The FDA on Jan. 3 said the government for the first time will allow mifepristone to be dispensed at retail pharmacies.

Medication abortion has drawn increasing attention since the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. Nearly all abortions, including medication abortions, are now banned in 12 states, and 16 states that permit some abortions also had laws restricting medication abortion as of November, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

“No abortion is safe, and chemical abortions are particularly dangerous,” said Julie Blake, senior counsel at the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The FDA, by approving chemical abortion drugs for home use, puts a woman or girl’s life at risk.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association said in a joint letter to the Biden administration last June that “robust evidence exists regarding the safety of mifepristone for medication-induced abortion.”

Antiabortion groups including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists sued the FDA in November, saying the agency improperly used an accelerated process to approve mifepristone and failed to study its risks for minors adequately.

In its court filing, the FDA said there was no basis for second-guessing the FDA’s judgment. The FDA said that pulling the drug would force patients seeking abortions in many cases to undergo unnecessary and more invasive surgical abortion. That would result in longer wait times and would carry risks for some patients including those intolerant to anesthesia, the FDA added.

In support of its position, the agency submitted declarations from abortion providers. For example, nonprofit Maine Family Planning said it would have to eliminate abortion services at 17 of its 18 clinics if mifepristone were no longer available.

Mifeprex maker Danco Laboratories on Friday also asked to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its ability to sell the drug.

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

(Reuters) – President Joe Biden’s administration is urging a judge to reject a request by abortion opponents for a court order withdrawing federal approval for the drug used in medication abortions – which account for more than half of U.S. abortions – citing potential dangers to women seeking to end their pregnancies.
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s filing to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, made available online on Tuesday, came in a lawsuit in Texas by antiabortion groups challenging the agency’s approval of the drug mifepristone in 2000 for medication abortion.

“The public interest would be dramatically harmed by effectively withdrawing from the marketplace a safe and effective drug that has lawfully been on the market for 22 years,” lawyers for the FDA said in the filing to Mr. Kacsmaryk, who is based in Amarillo.

Mifepristone is available under the brand name Mifeprex and as a generic. Used in conjunction with another drug, it is approved to terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy. The FDA on Jan. 3 said the government for the first time will allow mifepristone to be dispensed at retail pharmacies.

Medication abortion has drawn increasing attention since the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. Nearly all abortions, including medication abortions, are now banned in 12 states, and 16 states that permit some abortions also had laws restricting medication abortion as of November, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

“No abortion is safe, and chemical abortions are particularly dangerous,” said Julie Blake, senior counsel at the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The FDA, by approving chemical abortion drugs for home use, puts a woman or girl’s life at risk.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association said in a joint letter to the Biden administration last June that “robust evidence exists regarding the safety of mifepristone for medication-induced abortion.”

Antiabortion groups including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists sued the FDA in November, saying the agency improperly used an accelerated process to approve mifepristone and failed to study its risks for minors adequately.

In its court filing, the FDA said there was no basis for second-guessing the FDA’s judgment. The FDA said that pulling the drug would force patients seeking abortions in many cases to undergo unnecessary and more invasive surgical abortion. That would result in longer wait times and would carry risks for some patients including those intolerant to anesthesia, the FDA added.

In support of its position, the agency submitted declarations from abortion providers. For example, nonprofit Maine Family Planning said it would have to eliminate abortion services at 17 of its 18 clinics if mifepristone were no longer available.

Mifeprex maker Danco Laboratories on Friday also asked to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its ability to sell the drug.

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

A new prognostic tool may help identify infants with cerebral palsy (CP) earlier, allowing them to receive therapies to improve later outcomes.
 

Researchers from Canada used 12 clinical variables to predict the condition. The tool accurately predicted 75% of CP cases. The study was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The prevalence of CP in the United States is 2-3 children per 1,000, a rate that has been relatively unchanged for decades. Although recent innovations in diagnosis using motor scores and MRI scans have aided in diagnosis, these techniques have historically been reserved only for infants who were cared for in neonatal intensive care units, were born prematurely, or who had other neurologic risk factors, such as birth defects.

The tool identified 2.4 times more children with CP than would have been detected using current diagnostic methods, according to the researchers.

“We developed the prediction tool to try to make these findings accessible to any health care provider, which will hopefully help break down the long-held perception that CP is usually related to prematurity or a difficult delivery,” said Mary Dunbar, MD, an author of the study. “We know that about half of children with CP aren’t premature and didn’t have a particularly difficult birth.”

The bedside tool weighs factors such as the use by mothers of illicit drugs and tobacco; the presence of diabetes and preeclampsia during pregnancy; whether the infant is male; birth weight; and the number of miscarriages the mother had prior to the birth. The tool also factors in results from a test that measures how well the infant is adjusting to life outside the womb.

Dr. Dunbar and colleagues compared 1,265 infants with CP from the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry from 2003 to 2019 with a control group of 1,985 children without CP from the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition longitudinal study.

The study authors hope that the prognostic tool can be integrated into existing newborn screenings and completed by nurses or physicians as part of routine care.

“Its cost is low especially in comparison to MRI and specialized neurological assessments,” said Sarah Taylor, MD, section chief of neonatal-perinatal medicine at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital in New Haven, Conn. Health systems and doctors may be more apt to adopt the tool, since it does not require specialized equipment or training.
 

Surprising findings

Several clinical variables independently increased the risk of CP, including independent 5-minute Apgar test scores of <6, chorioamnionitis, and illicit drug use during the pregnancy. Dr. Dunbar and colleagues recommend that primary care clinicians provide enhanced surveillance for these infants.

“I think there are also really important public health implications to address maternal and reproductive health to support pregnant people, since this study shows that common pregnancy conditions that are potentially treatable may additively contribute to cerebral palsy risk,” said Dr. Dunbar, a pediatric neurologist and assistant professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.)

For infants identified as being at risk, the study authors also suggest that doctors conduct focused examinations for CP at 3-, 6- and 12-month well-baby visits. If results of an examination are abnormal, doctors can advise the caregiver to conduct an early expert evaluation for a general movements assessment. Interventions for children with CP usually start in the first few years of life and can include occupational therapy, use of orthotic devices, and medication.

Dr. Dunbar and colleagues acknowledge that the test is not perfect and that additional work is needed.

“As helpful as the prediction tool may be to identify cases of CP early, we know there are still a minority of CP cases that it won’t catch because they don’t have any of the known risk factors,” Dr. Dunbar said. “We’re currently working on further research about this unique group.”

The researchers cited several limitations to the dataset used in the study, including a control group that was skewed toward older patients and persons of higher socioeconomic status. In addition, the data included a greater proportion of White women than the average Canadian population.

The Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry was supported by the NeuroDevNet, KidsBrainHealth, the Harvey Guyda Chair of McGill University, Montreal Children’s Hospital, and the Public Health Agency of Canada. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new prognostic tool may help identify infants with cerebral palsy (CP) earlier, allowing them to receive therapies to improve later outcomes.
 

Researchers from Canada used 12 clinical variables to predict the condition. The tool accurately predicted 75% of CP cases. The study was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The prevalence of CP in the United States is 2-3 children per 1,000, a rate that has been relatively unchanged for decades. Although recent innovations in diagnosis using motor scores and MRI scans have aided in diagnosis, these techniques have historically been reserved only for infants who were cared for in neonatal intensive care units, were born prematurely, or who had other neurologic risk factors, such as birth defects.

The tool identified 2.4 times more children with CP than would have been detected using current diagnostic methods, according to the researchers.

“We developed the prediction tool to try to make these findings accessible to any health care provider, which will hopefully help break down the long-held perception that CP is usually related to prematurity or a difficult delivery,” said Mary Dunbar, MD, an author of the study. “We know that about half of children with CP aren’t premature and didn’t have a particularly difficult birth.”

The bedside tool weighs factors such as the use by mothers of illicit drugs and tobacco; the presence of diabetes and preeclampsia during pregnancy; whether the infant is male; birth weight; and the number of miscarriages the mother had prior to the birth. The tool also factors in results from a test that measures how well the infant is adjusting to life outside the womb.

Dr. Dunbar and colleagues compared 1,265 infants with CP from the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry from 2003 to 2019 with a control group of 1,985 children without CP from the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition longitudinal study.

The study authors hope that the prognostic tool can be integrated into existing newborn screenings and completed by nurses or physicians as part of routine care.

“Its cost is low especially in comparison to MRI and specialized neurological assessments,” said Sarah Taylor, MD, section chief of neonatal-perinatal medicine at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital in New Haven, Conn. Health systems and doctors may be more apt to adopt the tool, since it does not require specialized equipment or training.
 

Surprising findings

Several clinical variables independently increased the risk of CP, including independent 5-minute Apgar test scores of <6, chorioamnionitis, and illicit drug use during the pregnancy. Dr. Dunbar and colleagues recommend that primary care clinicians provide enhanced surveillance for these infants.

“I think there are also really important public health implications to address maternal and reproductive health to support pregnant people, since this study shows that common pregnancy conditions that are potentially treatable may additively contribute to cerebral palsy risk,” said Dr. Dunbar, a pediatric neurologist and assistant professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.)

For infants identified as being at risk, the study authors also suggest that doctors conduct focused examinations for CP at 3-, 6- and 12-month well-baby visits. If results of an examination are abnormal, doctors can advise the caregiver to conduct an early expert evaluation for a general movements assessment. Interventions for children with CP usually start in the first few years of life and can include occupational therapy, use of orthotic devices, and medication.

Dr. Dunbar and colleagues acknowledge that the test is not perfect and that additional work is needed.

“As helpful as the prediction tool may be to identify cases of CP early, we know there are still a minority of CP cases that it won’t catch because they don’t have any of the known risk factors,” Dr. Dunbar said. “We’re currently working on further research about this unique group.”

The researchers cited several limitations to the dataset used in the study, including a control group that was skewed toward older patients and persons of higher socioeconomic status. In addition, the data included a greater proportion of White women than the average Canadian population.

The Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry was supported by the NeuroDevNet, KidsBrainHealth, the Harvey Guyda Chair of McGill University, Montreal Children’s Hospital, and the Public Health Agency of Canada. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new prognostic tool may help identify infants with cerebral palsy (CP) earlier, allowing them to receive therapies to improve later outcomes.
 

Researchers from Canada used 12 clinical variables to predict the condition. The tool accurately predicted 75% of CP cases. The study was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The prevalence of CP in the United States is 2-3 children per 1,000, a rate that has been relatively unchanged for decades. Although recent innovations in diagnosis using motor scores and MRI scans have aided in diagnosis, these techniques have historically been reserved only for infants who were cared for in neonatal intensive care units, were born prematurely, or who had other neurologic risk factors, such as birth defects.

The tool identified 2.4 times more children with CP than would have been detected using current diagnostic methods, according to the researchers.

“We developed the prediction tool to try to make these findings accessible to any health care provider, which will hopefully help break down the long-held perception that CP is usually related to prematurity or a difficult delivery,” said Mary Dunbar, MD, an author of the study. “We know that about half of children with CP aren’t premature and didn’t have a particularly difficult birth.”

The bedside tool weighs factors such as the use by mothers of illicit drugs and tobacco; the presence of diabetes and preeclampsia during pregnancy; whether the infant is male; birth weight; and the number of miscarriages the mother had prior to the birth. The tool also factors in results from a test that measures how well the infant is adjusting to life outside the womb.

Dr. Dunbar and colleagues compared 1,265 infants with CP from the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry from 2003 to 2019 with a control group of 1,985 children without CP from the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition longitudinal study.

The study authors hope that the prognostic tool can be integrated into existing newborn screenings and completed by nurses or physicians as part of routine care.

“Its cost is low especially in comparison to MRI and specialized neurological assessments,” said Sarah Taylor, MD, section chief of neonatal-perinatal medicine at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital in New Haven, Conn. Health systems and doctors may be more apt to adopt the tool, since it does not require specialized equipment or training.
 

Surprising findings

Several clinical variables independently increased the risk of CP, including independent 5-minute Apgar test scores of <6, chorioamnionitis, and illicit drug use during the pregnancy. Dr. Dunbar and colleagues recommend that primary care clinicians provide enhanced surveillance for these infants.

“I think there are also really important public health implications to address maternal and reproductive health to support pregnant people, since this study shows that common pregnancy conditions that are potentially treatable may additively contribute to cerebral palsy risk,” said Dr. Dunbar, a pediatric neurologist and assistant professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.)

For infants identified as being at risk, the study authors also suggest that doctors conduct focused examinations for CP at 3-, 6- and 12-month well-baby visits. If results of an examination are abnormal, doctors can advise the caregiver to conduct an early expert evaluation for a general movements assessment. Interventions for children with CP usually start in the first few years of life and can include occupational therapy, use of orthotic devices, and medication.

Dr. Dunbar and colleagues acknowledge that the test is not perfect and that additional work is needed.

“As helpful as the prediction tool may be to identify cases of CP early, we know there are still a minority of CP cases that it won’t catch because they don’t have any of the known risk factors,” Dr. Dunbar said. “We’re currently working on further research about this unique group.”

The researchers cited several limitations to the dataset used in the study, including a control group that was skewed toward older patients and persons of higher socioeconomic status. In addition, the data included a greater proportion of White women than the average Canadian population.

The Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry was supported by the NeuroDevNet, KidsBrainHealth, the Harvey Guyda Chair of McGill University, Montreal Children’s Hospital, and the Public Health Agency of Canada. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

How many of you hadn’t heard of ambroxol until the last few weeks?

How many of you have gotten at least one call asking for a prescription for it in that time?

I’ll raise my hand on both accounts.

Ambroxol seems relatively innocuous – an over-the-counter cold medication commonly used on planet Earth (though not approved in the U.S. for whatever reason). But in the last few years some interesting data have cropped up that it may help with Parkinson’s disease.

“May” being the key word here.

Now, I’m not saying it will or won’t do something. The trials that are being started will show that. It would be totally awesome if it did.

But we’ve been here before: The hope that some old, inexpensive, and widely available medication would turn out to have an amazing benefit we didn’t anticipate. We saw this with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the pandemic. Before that we saw all kinds of speculative ideas that statins would be effective for diseases from multiple sclerosis to Alzheimer’s disease.

And, as with many incurable diseases, patients and their families are hoping for a breakthrough. We have plenty of treatments for Parkinson’s disease, but no cures yet. So any potentially effective drug news makes the rounds quickly on news sites, patient advocacy sites, Facebook, and others.

Like the childrens’ telephone game, each time the story is repeated it changes a bit. We’ve gone from an article saying the drug is starting clinical trials to see if it works, to it being a cure now on the marketplace.

Which is when people start calling my office. Most are disappointed to learn that its benefit (if any) is unknown and that it’s not even available. A few get confrontational, accusing me of withholding treatment, when “everyone knows” the drug works.

Believe me, if I had a cure I’d be thrilled to be able to offer it.

I understand that patients and families want a cure.

I understand hope.

I want ambroxol to work for Parkinson’s disease and make a huge difference in the lives of those affected by it. Maybe it will. Or maybe it won’t.

But these things take time to figure out. None of the amazing medications and hi-tech toys we have came about overnight. They were all years in the making.

That’s how science works, and medicine is as much a science as an art.

The art is being able to explain this to patients, and still allow them to hope.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

How many of you hadn’t heard of ambroxol until the last few weeks?

How many of you have gotten at least one call asking for a prescription for it in that time?

I’ll raise my hand on both accounts.

Ambroxol seems relatively innocuous – an over-the-counter cold medication commonly used on planet Earth (though not approved in the U.S. for whatever reason). But in the last few years some interesting data have cropped up that it may help with Parkinson’s disease.

“May” being the key word here.

Now, I’m not saying it will or won’t do something. The trials that are being started will show that. It would be totally awesome if it did.

But we’ve been here before: The hope that some old, inexpensive, and widely available medication would turn out to have an amazing benefit we didn’t anticipate. We saw this with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the pandemic. Before that we saw all kinds of speculative ideas that statins would be effective for diseases from multiple sclerosis to Alzheimer’s disease.

And, as with many incurable diseases, patients and their families are hoping for a breakthrough. We have plenty of treatments for Parkinson’s disease, but no cures yet. So any potentially effective drug news makes the rounds quickly on news sites, patient advocacy sites, Facebook, and others.

Like the childrens’ telephone game, each time the story is repeated it changes a bit. We’ve gone from an article saying the drug is starting clinical trials to see if it works, to it being a cure now on the marketplace.

Which is when people start calling my office. Most are disappointed to learn that its benefit (if any) is unknown and that it’s not even available. A few get confrontational, accusing me of withholding treatment, when “everyone knows” the drug works.

Believe me, if I had a cure I’d be thrilled to be able to offer it.

I understand that patients and families want a cure.

I understand hope.

I want ambroxol to work for Parkinson’s disease and make a huge difference in the lives of those affected by it. Maybe it will. Or maybe it won’t.

But these things take time to figure out. None of the amazing medications and hi-tech toys we have came about overnight. They were all years in the making.

That’s how science works, and medicine is as much a science as an art.

The art is being able to explain this to patients, and still allow them to hope.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

How many of you hadn’t heard of ambroxol until the last few weeks?

How many of you have gotten at least one call asking for a prescription for it in that time?

I’ll raise my hand on both accounts.

Ambroxol seems relatively innocuous – an over-the-counter cold medication commonly used on planet Earth (though not approved in the U.S. for whatever reason). But in the last few years some interesting data have cropped up that it may help with Parkinson’s disease.

“May” being the key word here.

Now, I’m not saying it will or won’t do something. The trials that are being started will show that. It would be totally awesome if it did.

But we’ve been here before: The hope that some old, inexpensive, and widely available medication would turn out to have an amazing benefit we didn’t anticipate. We saw this with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the pandemic. Before that we saw all kinds of speculative ideas that statins would be effective for diseases from multiple sclerosis to Alzheimer’s disease.

And, as with many incurable diseases, patients and their families are hoping for a breakthrough. We have plenty of treatments for Parkinson’s disease, but no cures yet. So any potentially effective drug news makes the rounds quickly on news sites, patient advocacy sites, Facebook, and others.

Like the childrens’ telephone game, each time the story is repeated it changes a bit. We’ve gone from an article saying the drug is starting clinical trials to see if it works, to it being a cure now on the marketplace.

Which is when people start calling my office. Most are disappointed to learn that its benefit (if any) is unknown and that it’s not even available. A few get confrontational, accusing me of withholding treatment, when “everyone knows” the drug works.

Believe me, if I had a cure I’d be thrilled to be able to offer it.

I understand that patients and families want a cure.

I understand hope.

I want ambroxol to work for Parkinson’s disease and make a huge difference in the lives of those affected by it. Maybe it will. Or maybe it won’t.

But these things take time to figure out. None of the amazing medications and hi-tech toys we have came about overnight. They were all years in the making.

That’s how science works, and medicine is as much a science as an art.

The art is being able to explain this to patients, and still allow them to hope.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Few pediatricians have warm, fuzzy memories about taking their initial board exam.

But many reacted strongly when they read a recent post on Twitter by Bryan Carmody, MD, who noted that the passing rate for first-time test takers had dipped to its lowest level in 5 years – hitting 81% in 2021, down from 91% 3 years earlier.

“It’s literally an awfully written exam,” replied one person who posted. Another asked: “At what point is the exam just not reflective of clinical practice?” And, inevitably, the question of the effect of COVID-19 surfaced: “Is any of this attributable to pulling early career physicians into the pandemic?”

But Dr. Carmody, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, isn’t buying that explanation. He researched board scores for internal medicine, general surgery, and family medicine for 2021. All were stable during the same period, he said, leading him to dismiss the idea that the pandemic drove the decline. “It’s not really clear to me why other specialties wouldn’t have seen similar drops,” Dr. Carmody said.

The slip has caught the attention of the American Board of Pediatrics, according to Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA, who was chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Miami before taking her post as president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics in 2021.

“So, our first question was, was this within the range of what one might expect?” Dr. Schaechter said. “Were there other factors that might have come into play?”

The board performs an extensive analysis every year before releasing scores, and it didn’t uncover any changes in the difficulty or content of the test in 2021, nor did the score that was needed to pass increase. Dr. Schaechter pointed out that the passing rate that year was not unprecedented – in 2016, it also dipped to 81%.

Dr. Schaechter said COVID-19 might have affected test takers. “Remember, pediatrics was different from any other specialty during the pandemic,” she said. The census in pediatric wards around the country dropped dramatically in the first two winters of the pandemic, leaving residents with less hands-on experience with patients and mentorship from attendings – both of which can help test-takers pass the exam.

Eyal Ben-Isaac, MD, an associate professor of the department of pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said residents likely suffered during the pandemic, when noon lectures and grand rounds became virtual events.

“I’m sure that clearly affected a person’s ability to sit and listen and really learn the material, as opposed to either doing it hands on or learning the material from a faculty member face to face,” Dr. Ben-Isaac said.

But how much do the didactic experiences of residency programs contribute to residents’ readiness to take the boards? Thomas Welch, MD, professor and chair emeritus of the department of pediatrics at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, credits his own success in advancing through college, medical school, pediatric residency, and nephrology fellowship to his skill as a test taker.

He confirmed his suspicions by conducting a study that evaluated correlations between residents’ performance on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) taken during medical school and their board scores after completing residency.

Dr. Welch said he wasn’t surprised to find that “the best predictor of one’s passing the pediatric boards was not the training program in which one worked. It was their performance on Step 2 [taken during the fourth year of medical school] of the USMLE.”

Although Dr. Ben-Isaac felt that changes in residency training opportunities might have partially explained the drop in passing rates, he agreed that other factors contribute to success on boards. As director of the pediatric residency program at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles from 1994 to 2019, one of his first goals was to increase the pass rate of graduates. He developed a board review course for residents, revising it over time on the basis of resident feedback and adding individual coaching for residents who wanted more help.

“Without a question, it raised our board pass rate to being one of the highest in the country,” he said.

Dr. Welch said that while “being up all night with a sick child teaches you a lot about medicine and certainly makes you a better doctor, it doesn’t do anything to improve your board scores.”

None of the pediatricians was too worried about a 1-year drop in scores, and the consensus was that supporting residents with review courses and coaching on how to take multiple choice tests would raise passing rates.

“There are definitely people who are amazing clinicians who did not pass the boards on their first attempt,” Dr. Ben-Isaac said.

But Dr. Schaechter defended the importance of the examination. “Our first obligation is really to the public,” she said. The ABP’s role is to ensure that pediatricians “provide the care that parents want their kids to have.”

As Dr. Welch put it, “Would I trust someone who didn’t pass the board exam to take care of my own kid? Probably not.”

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

Few pediatricians have warm, fuzzy memories about taking their initial board exam.

But many reacted strongly when they read a recent post on Twitter by Bryan Carmody, MD, who noted that the passing rate for first-time test takers had dipped to its lowest level in 5 years – hitting 81% in 2021, down from 91% 3 years earlier.

“It’s literally an awfully written exam,” replied one person who posted. Another asked: “At what point is the exam just not reflective of clinical practice?” And, inevitably, the question of the effect of COVID-19 surfaced: “Is any of this attributable to pulling early career physicians into the pandemic?”

But Dr. Carmody, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, isn’t buying that explanation. He researched board scores for internal medicine, general surgery, and family medicine for 2021. All were stable during the same period, he said, leading him to dismiss the idea that the pandemic drove the decline. “It’s not really clear to me why other specialties wouldn’t have seen similar drops,” Dr. Carmody said.

The slip has caught the attention of the American Board of Pediatrics, according to Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA, who was chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Miami before taking her post as president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics in 2021.

“So, our first question was, was this within the range of what one might expect?” Dr. Schaechter said. “Were there other factors that might have come into play?”

The board performs an extensive analysis every year before releasing scores, and it didn’t uncover any changes in the difficulty or content of the test in 2021, nor did the score that was needed to pass increase. Dr. Schaechter pointed out that the passing rate that year was not unprecedented – in 2016, it also dipped to 81%.

Dr. Schaechter said COVID-19 might have affected test takers. “Remember, pediatrics was different from any other specialty during the pandemic,” she said. The census in pediatric wards around the country dropped dramatically in the first two winters of the pandemic, leaving residents with less hands-on experience with patients and mentorship from attendings – both of which can help test-takers pass the exam.

Eyal Ben-Isaac, MD, an associate professor of the department of pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said residents likely suffered during the pandemic, when noon lectures and grand rounds became virtual events.

“I’m sure that clearly affected a person’s ability to sit and listen and really learn the material, as opposed to either doing it hands on or learning the material from a faculty member face to face,” Dr. Ben-Isaac said.

But how much do the didactic experiences of residency programs contribute to residents’ readiness to take the boards? Thomas Welch, MD, professor and chair emeritus of the department of pediatrics at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, credits his own success in advancing through college, medical school, pediatric residency, and nephrology fellowship to his skill as a test taker.

He confirmed his suspicions by conducting a study that evaluated correlations between residents’ performance on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) taken during medical school and their board scores after completing residency.

Dr. Welch said he wasn’t surprised to find that “the best predictor of one’s passing the pediatric boards was not the training program in which one worked. It was their performance on Step 2 [taken during the fourth year of medical school] of the USMLE.”

Although Dr. Ben-Isaac felt that changes in residency training opportunities might have partially explained the drop in passing rates, he agreed that other factors contribute to success on boards. As director of the pediatric residency program at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles from 1994 to 2019, one of his first goals was to increase the pass rate of graduates. He developed a board review course for residents, revising it over time on the basis of resident feedback and adding individual coaching for residents who wanted more help.

“Without a question, it raised our board pass rate to being one of the highest in the country,” he said.

Dr. Welch said that while “being up all night with a sick child teaches you a lot about medicine and certainly makes you a better doctor, it doesn’t do anything to improve your board scores.”

None of the pediatricians was too worried about a 1-year drop in scores, and the consensus was that supporting residents with review courses and coaching on how to take multiple choice tests would raise passing rates.

“There are definitely people who are amazing clinicians who did not pass the boards on their first attempt,” Dr. Ben-Isaac said.

But Dr. Schaechter defended the importance of the examination. “Our first obligation is really to the public,” she said. The ABP’s role is to ensure that pediatricians “provide the care that parents want their kids to have.”

As Dr. Welch put it, “Would I trust someone who didn’t pass the board exam to take care of my own kid? Probably not.”

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

Few pediatricians have warm, fuzzy memories about taking their initial board exam.

But many reacted strongly when they read a recent post on Twitter by Bryan Carmody, MD, who noted that the passing rate for first-time test takers had dipped to its lowest level in 5 years – hitting 81% in 2021, down from 91% 3 years earlier.

“It’s literally an awfully written exam,” replied one person who posted. Another asked: “At what point is the exam just not reflective of clinical practice?” And, inevitably, the question of the effect of COVID-19 surfaced: “Is any of this attributable to pulling early career physicians into the pandemic?”

But Dr. Carmody, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, isn’t buying that explanation. He researched board scores for internal medicine, general surgery, and family medicine for 2021. All were stable during the same period, he said, leading him to dismiss the idea that the pandemic drove the decline. “It’s not really clear to me why other specialties wouldn’t have seen similar drops,” Dr. Carmody said.

The slip has caught the attention of the American Board of Pediatrics, according to Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA, who was chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Miami before taking her post as president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics in 2021.

“So, our first question was, was this within the range of what one might expect?” Dr. Schaechter said. “Were there other factors that might have come into play?”

The board performs an extensive analysis every year before releasing scores, and it didn’t uncover any changes in the difficulty or content of the test in 2021, nor did the score that was needed to pass increase. Dr. Schaechter pointed out that the passing rate that year was not unprecedented – in 2016, it also dipped to 81%.

Dr. Schaechter said COVID-19 might have affected test takers. “Remember, pediatrics was different from any other specialty during the pandemic,” she said. The census in pediatric wards around the country dropped dramatically in the first two winters of the pandemic, leaving residents with less hands-on experience with patients and mentorship from attendings – both of which can help test-takers pass the exam.

Eyal Ben-Isaac, MD, an associate professor of the department of pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said residents likely suffered during the pandemic, when noon lectures and grand rounds became virtual events.

“I’m sure that clearly affected a person’s ability to sit and listen and really learn the material, as opposed to either doing it hands on or learning the material from a faculty member face to face,” Dr. Ben-Isaac said.

But how much do the didactic experiences of residency programs contribute to residents’ readiness to take the boards? Thomas Welch, MD, professor and chair emeritus of the department of pediatrics at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, credits his own success in advancing through college, medical school, pediatric residency, and nephrology fellowship to his skill as a test taker.

He confirmed his suspicions by conducting a study that evaluated correlations between residents’ performance on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) taken during medical school and their board scores after completing residency.

Dr. Welch said he wasn’t surprised to find that “the best predictor of one’s passing the pediatric boards was not the training program in which one worked. It was their performance on Step 2 [taken during the fourth year of medical school] of the USMLE.”

Although Dr. Ben-Isaac felt that changes in residency training opportunities might have partially explained the drop in passing rates, he agreed that other factors contribute to success on boards. As director of the pediatric residency program at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles from 1994 to 2019, one of his first goals was to increase the pass rate of graduates. He developed a board review course for residents, revising it over time on the basis of resident feedback and adding individual coaching for residents who wanted more help.

“Without a question, it raised our board pass rate to being one of the highest in the country,” he said.

Dr. Welch said that while “being up all night with a sick child teaches you a lot about medicine and certainly makes you a better doctor, it doesn’t do anything to improve your board scores.”

None of the pediatricians was too worried about a 1-year drop in scores, and the consensus was that supporting residents with review courses and coaching on how to take multiple choice tests would raise passing rates.

“There are definitely people who are amazing clinicians who did not pass the boards on their first attempt,” Dr. Ben-Isaac said.

But Dr. Schaechter defended the importance of the examination. “Our first obligation is really to the public,” she said. The ABP’s role is to ensure that pediatricians “provide the care that parents want their kids to have.”

As Dr. Welch put it, “Would I trust someone who didn’t pass the board exam to take care of my own kid? Probably not.”

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

Clinical cardiologist Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, knows the value of working with her fellow rheumatologists, surgeons, and other clinicians to establish a care plan for her patients with cardiac conditions and autoimmune diseases.

She is the cofounder of the Cleveland Clinic’s new cardio-rheumatology program, which places an emphasis on multidisciplinary care. In her role, Dr. Wassif closely follows her patients, and if she sees any inflammation or any other condition that requires the rheumatologist, she reaches out to her colleagues to adjust medications if needed.

Collaboration with a rheumatologist was important when a patient with valvular disease was prepping for surgery. The patient was on significant immunosuppressants and the surgery had to be timed appropriately, accounting for any decreases in her immunosuppression, explained Dr. Wassif, director of inpatient clinical cardiology at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

Cardio-rheumatology programs are “the newest child” in a series of cardiology offshoots focusing on different populations. Cardio-oncology and cardio-obstetrics took off about 6 years ago, with cardio-rheumatology clinics and interested physicians rising in number over the last several years, Dr. Wassif noted.

The relationship between cardiovascular diseases and rheumatologic conditions is certainly recognized more often, “which means more literature is being published to discuss the link,” according to Rekha Mankad, MD, a trailblazer of this model of care. She directs the Women’s Heart Clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which was one of the earliest adopters of a cardio-rheumatology clinic.

Challenges of treating cardiac, rheumatologic conditions

The rise in clinics addresses the longstanding connection between autoimmune disorders and cardiac conditions.

Cardiologists have known that there is an element of inflammation that contributes to atherosclerosis, said Dr. Wassif, who has researched this topic extensively. A recent study she led found a strong association between rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and high risk of acute coronary syndrome in Medicare patients.

“This particular population has a very clear increased risk for cardiovascular conditions, including valve disease and heart failure,” she emphasized.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus have up to a twofold and eightfold higher risk of heart disease, respectively, noted Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiovascular disease specialist who directs the cardio-rheumatology program at NYU-Langone Health, in New York. Cardiologists “have really developed an understanding that the immune system can impact the heart, and that there’s a need for people to understand the nuance behind how the immune system can affect them and what to do about it,” Dr. Garshick said.

Courtesy Rob Lisak

‘Reading the tea leaves’

Each program has its own unique story. For the Cleveland Clinic, the concept of a cardio-rheumatology program began during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Developing such a concept and gaining institutional acceptance is always a work in process, Dr. Wassif said. “It’s not that you decide one day that you’re going to build a center, and that center is going to come into fruition overnight. You first gauge interest within your division. Who are the individuals that are interested in this area?”

Cleveland Clinic’s center is seeking to build relations between medical disciplines while spotlighting the concept of cardio-rheumatology, said Dr. Wassif, who has been providing education within the clinic and at other health institutions to ensure that patients receive appropriate attention early.

NYU-Langone launched its program amid this heightened awareness that the immune system could affect atherosclerosis, “kind of reading of the tea leaves, so to speak,” Dr. Garshick said.

Several clinical trials served as a catalyst for this movement. “A lot of clinical cardiologists were never 100% convinced that targeting the immune system reduced cardiovascular disease,” he said. Then the CANTOS clinical trial came along and showed for the first time that a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1beta, a cytokine central to inflammatory response, could in fact reduce cardiovascular disease.

Trials like this, along with epidemiologic literature connecting the rheumatologic and the autoimmune conditions with cardiovascular disease, pushed this concept to the forefront, Dr. Garshick said.

The notion that a clinic could successfully address cardiac problems in patients with rheumatic diseases yielded promising returns at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, according to a report presented at the 2018 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Researchers reported that patients with rheumatologic conditions who attended a cardio-rheumatology clinic at this center saw improvements in care. The clinic identified increased cardiovascular risk and early atherosclerosis, and 53.8% of patients altered their medications after being seen in the clinic.

A total of 39.7% and 32.1% received lipid lowering and antiplatelet therapies, respectively, and 14% received antihypertensive therapy. A small percentage were treated for heart failure or placed on lifelong anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, and one patient received a percutaneous coronary stent.
 

Ins and outs of the referral process

Initially designed for preventive cardiac risk assessment, Yale’s program evolved into a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach for the management of complex cardiovascular conditions in patients with autoimmune rheumatologic diseases.

The program is open to anyone who carries a diagnosis of rheumatologic disease or has elevated inflammatory markers. “Every patient, regardless of the reason for the referral, receives a cardiovascular risk assessment,” Dr. Furman said.

Harold Shapiro

A personalized assessment to reduce cardiac risk

NYU-Langone’s program offers opportunities to educate patients about the link between cardiac and rheumatologic disease.

“Their rheumatologist or their dermatologist will say, ‘Hey, have you heard about the connection between psoriasis, psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis, and heart disease and the risk of heart attack or stroke?’ ” Dr. Garshick said.

The patients will often say they know nothing about these connections and want to learn more about how to treat it.

“We’ll say, ‘we have someone here that can help you.’ They’ll send them to myself or other colleagues like me across the country. We’ll assess blood pressure, weight, lipids, hemoglobin A1c, and other serologic and oftentimes imaging biomarkers of cardiovascular risk.” The patients will receive a personalized assessment, listing things they can do to lower their risk, whether it’s diet, exercise, or lifestyle. “Many times it can involve medications to reduce heart disease risk,” said Dr. Garshick.

In some instances, a rheumatologist or dermatologist may be concerned about starting a patient on a specific medication for the disease such as a JAK inhibitor. “We’ll help assess their risk because there’s been a lot of literature out in the rheumatology world about the risk of JAK inhibitors and heart disease and blood clots,” said Dr. Garshick.

Dr. Garshick also sees patients with rheumatologic conditions who have a specific cardiovascular concern or complaint such as shortness of breath or chest pain. “We’ll work that up with a specific knowledge of the underlying immune condition and how that may impact their heart,” he said.
 

Advances in research

As they continue to see patients and devise specific care plans, developers of cardio-rheumatology programs have been supplementing their work with ongoing research.

Yale’s clinic is expanding this year to include a new attending physician, Attila Feher, MD, PhD, who has conducted research in autoimmunity and microcirculation using molecular imaging and multimodality imaging techniques. Prevalence of coronary microvascular dysfunction appears to be increased in this patient population, Dr. Furman said.

Dr. Wassif recently coauthored a paper that examined patients with underlying rheumatologic conditions who undergo valvular and aortic valve replacement. “To our surprise, there was really no difference between patients with autoimmune conditions and others with nonautoimmune conditions,” she said, adding that the study had its limitations.

Other work includes data on Medicare patients with ST- and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarctions who have an underlying autoimmune disorder. Dr. Wassif and her colleagues found that their long-term outcomes are worse than those of patients without these conditions. “It’s unclear if worse outcomes are related to complications of autoimmunity versus the extent of their underlying disease. This is a work in progress and certainly an area that is ripe for research.”

Dr. Garshick and other collaborators at NYU have been focusing on the endothelium, specifically platelet biology in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and lupus. “We’re about to start the same research with gout as well,” he said.

“The process we’re most interested in is understanding how these diseases impact the early stages of cholesterol. And the way we’re doing that is evaluating the vasculature, specifically the endothelium,” he said.

He has finished two clinical trials that evaluate how standard heart disease medications such as aspirin and statins impact or can potentially benefit patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis. “We have a whole list of other trials in the pipeline with other institutions across the country.”

Through a grant, Dr. Mankad is assessing whether a PET scan could detect inflammation in the hearts of rheumatoid arthritis patients. “We’re looking to see if the reason these patients have heart failure later in life is because their heart muscle actually shows evidence of inflammation, even when they have no symptoms,” she explained.

Other tests such as echocardiogram and CT scans will be used to evaluate coronary disease in about 40-50 patients. The goal of using these multiple imaging tools is to find markers indicating that the heart is affected by rheumatoid arthritis, which may indicate a higher likelihood of developing heart failure, she said.
 

Clinics are popping up

Through these new clinics, some collaborations have emerged. Dr. Garshick works closely with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which has a similar cardio-rheumatology program, run by Brittany Weber, MD, to exchange ideas, discuss challenging cases, and collaborate.

“There are a lot of clinics like us popping up across the country,” he observed. Every so often, he hears from other institutions that are interested in starting their own cardio-rheumatology programs. “They ask us: How do you start, what should we look for?”

It’s an education process for both patients and providers, Dr. Garshick emphasized. “I also think it’s a bandwidth issue. Many of our rheumatology and dermatology colleagues are acutely aware of the connection, but there may not be enough time at a clinic visit to really go in depth” with these dual conditions, he said.

NYU-Langone Health for the past several years has been holding a symposium to educate people on the cardio-rheumatology connection and treating inflammation in cardiovascular disease. This year’s symposium, held in conjunction with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, is scheduled for April 28. For more information, visit the course website: nyulmc.org/cvinflammationcme.

“What we’re trying to do is help [other institutions] get that bandwidth” to adequately help and serve these patients, he said.

Dr. Garshick has received consultant fees from Abbvie and Horizon therapeutics and an unrestricted research grant from Pfizer. No other sources had relevant financial disclosures.

Clinical cardiologist Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, knows the value of working with her fellow rheumatologists, surgeons, and other clinicians to establish a care plan for her patients with cardiac conditions and autoimmune diseases.

She is the cofounder of the Cleveland Clinic’s new cardio-rheumatology program, which places an emphasis on multidisciplinary care. In her role, Dr. Wassif closely follows her patients, and if she sees any inflammation or any other condition that requires the rheumatologist, she reaches out to her colleagues to adjust medications if needed.

Collaboration with a rheumatologist was important when a patient with valvular disease was prepping for surgery. The patient was on significant immunosuppressants and the surgery had to be timed appropriately, accounting for any decreases in her immunosuppression, explained Dr. Wassif, director of inpatient clinical cardiology at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

Cardio-rheumatology programs are “the newest child” in a series of cardiology offshoots focusing on different populations. Cardio-oncology and cardio-obstetrics took off about 6 years ago, with cardio-rheumatology clinics and interested physicians rising in number over the last several years, Dr. Wassif noted.

The relationship between cardiovascular diseases and rheumatologic conditions is certainly recognized more often, “which means more literature is being published to discuss the link,” according to Rekha Mankad, MD, a trailblazer of this model of care. She directs the Women’s Heart Clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which was one of the earliest adopters of a cardio-rheumatology clinic.

Challenges of treating cardiac, rheumatologic conditions

The rise in clinics addresses the longstanding connection between autoimmune disorders and cardiac conditions.

Cardiologists have known that there is an element of inflammation that contributes to atherosclerosis, said Dr. Wassif, who has researched this topic extensively. A recent study she led found a strong association between rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and high risk of acute coronary syndrome in Medicare patients.

“This particular population has a very clear increased risk for cardiovascular conditions, including valve disease and heart failure,” she emphasized.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus have up to a twofold and eightfold higher risk of heart disease, respectively, noted Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiovascular disease specialist who directs the cardio-rheumatology program at NYU-Langone Health, in New York. Cardiologists “have really developed an understanding that the immune system can impact the heart, and that there’s a need for people to understand the nuance behind how the immune system can affect them and what to do about it,” Dr. Garshick said.

Courtesy Rob Lisak

‘Reading the tea leaves’

Each program has its own unique story. For the Cleveland Clinic, the concept of a cardio-rheumatology program began during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Developing such a concept and gaining institutional acceptance is always a work in process, Dr. Wassif said. “It’s not that you decide one day that you’re going to build a center, and that center is going to come into fruition overnight. You first gauge interest within your division. Who are the individuals that are interested in this area?”

Cleveland Clinic’s center is seeking to build relations between medical disciplines while spotlighting the concept of cardio-rheumatology, said Dr. Wassif, who has been providing education within the clinic and at other health institutions to ensure that patients receive appropriate attention early.

NYU-Langone launched its program amid this heightened awareness that the immune system could affect atherosclerosis, “kind of reading of the tea leaves, so to speak,” Dr. Garshick said.

Several clinical trials served as a catalyst for this movement. “A lot of clinical cardiologists were never 100% convinced that targeting the immune system reduced cardiovascular disease,” he said. Then the CANTOS clinical trial came along and showed for the first time that a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1beta, a cytokine central to inflammatory response, could in fact reduce cardiovascular disease.

Trials like this, along with epidemiologic literature connecting the rheumatologic and the autoimmune conditions with cardiovascular disease, pushed this concept to the forefront, Dr. Garshick said.

The notion that a clinic could successfully address cardiac problems in patients with rheumatic diseases yielded promising returns at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, according to a report presented at the 2018 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Researchers reported that patients with rheumatologic conditions who attended a cardio-rheumatology clinic at this center saw improvements in care. The clinic identified increased cardiovascular risk and early atherosclerosis, and 53.8% of patients altered their medications after being seen in the clinic.

A total of 39.7% and 32.1% received lipid lowering and antiplatelet therapies, respectively, and 14% received antihypertensive therapy. A small percentage were treated for heart failure or placed on lifelong anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, and one patient received a percutaneous coronary stent.
 

Ins and outs of the referral process

Initially designed for preventive cardiac risk assessment, Yale’s program evolved into a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach for the management of complex cardiovascular conditions in patients with autoimmune rheumatologic diseases.

The program is open to anyone who carries a diagnosis of rheumatologic disease or has elevated inflammatory markers. “Every patient, regardless of the reason for the referral, receives a cardiovascular risk assessment,” Dr. Furman said.

Harold Shapiro

A personalized assessment to reduce cardiac risk

NYU-Langone’s program offers opportunities to educate patients about the link between cardiac and rheumatologic disease.

“Their rheumatologist or their dermatologist will say, ‘Hey, have you heard about the connection between psoriasis, psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis, and heart disease and the risk of heart attack or stroke?’ ” Dr. Garshick said.

The patients will often say they know nothing about these connections and want to learn more about how to treat it.

“We’ll say, ‘we have someone here that can help you.’ They’ll send them to myself or other colleagues like me across the country. We’ll assess blood pressure, weight, lipids, hemoglobin A1c, and other serologic and oftentimes imaging biomarkers of cardiovascular risk.” The patients will receive a personalized assessment, listing things they can do to lower their risk, whether it’s diet, exercise, or lifestyle. “Many times it can involve medications to reduce heart disease risk,” said Dr. Garshick.

In some instances, a rheumatologist or dermatologist may be concerned about starting a patient on a specific medication for the disease such as a JAK inhibitor. “We’ll help assess their risk because there’s been a lot of literature out in the rheumatology world about the risk of JAK inhibitors and heart disease and blood clots,” said Dr. Garshick.

Dr. Garshick also sees patients with rheumatologic conditions who have a specific cardiovascular concern or complaint such as shortness of breath or chest pain. “We’ll work that up with a specific knowledge of the underlying immune condition and how that may impact their heart,” he said.
 

Advances in research

As they continue to see patients and devise specific care plans, developers of cardio-rheumatology programs have been supplementing their work with ongoing research.

Yale’s clinic is expanding this year to include a new attending physician, Attila Feher, MD, PhD, who has conducted research in autoimmunity and microcirculation using molecular imaging and multimodality imaging techniques. Prevalence of coronary microvascular dysfunction appears to be increased in this patient population, Dr. Furman said.

Dr. Wassif recently coauthored a paper that examined patients with underlying rheumatologic conditions who undergo valvular and aortic valve replacement. “To our surprise, there was really no difference between patients with autoimmune conditions and others with nonautoimmune conditions,” she said, adding that the study had its limitations.

Other work includes data on Medicare patients with ST- and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarctions who have an underlying autoimmune disorder. Dr. Wassif and her colleagues found that their long-term outcomes are worse than those of patients without these conditions. “It’s unclear if worse outcomes are related to complications of autoimmunity versus the extent of their underlying disease. This is a work in progress and certainly an area that is ripe for research.”

Dr. Garshick and other collaborators at NYU have been focusing on the endothelium, specifically platelet biology in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and lupus. “We’re about to start the same research with gout as well,” he said.

“The process we’re most interested in is understanding how these diseases impact the early stages of cholesterol. And the way we’re doing that is evaluating the vasculature, specifically the endothelium,” he said.

He has finished two clinical trials that evaluate how standard heart disease medications such as aspirin and statins impact or can potentially benefit patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis. “We have a whole list of other trials in the pipeline with other institutions across the country.”

Through a grant, Dr. Mankad is assessing whether a PET scan could detect inflammation in the hearts of rheumatoid arthritis patients. “We’re looking to see if the reason these patients have heart failure later in life is because their heart muscle actually shows evidence of inflammation, even when they have no symptoms,” she explained.

Other tests such as echocardiogram and CT scans will be used to evaluate coronary disease in about 40-50 patients. The goal of using these multiple imaging tools is to find markers indicating that the heart is affected by rheumatoid arthritis, which may indicate a higher likelihood of developing heart failure, she said.
 

Clinics are popping up

Through these new clinics, some collaborations have emerged. Dr. Garshick works closely with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which has a similar cardio-rheumatology program, run by Brittany Weber, MD, to exchange ideas, discuss challenging cases, and collaborate.

“There are a lot of clinics like us popping up across the country,” he observed. Every so often, he hears from other institutions that are interested in starting their own cardio-rheumatology programs. “They ask us: How do you start, what should we look for?”

It’s an education process for both patients and providers, Dr. Garshick emphasized. “I also think it’s a bandwidth issue. Many of our rheumatology and dermatology colleagues are acutely aware of the connection, but there may not be enough time at a clinic visit to really go in depth” with these dual conditions, he said.

NYU-Langone Health for the past several years has been holding a symposium to educate people on the cardio-rheumatology connection and treating inflammation in cardiovascular disease. This year’s symposium, held in conjunction with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, is scheduled for April 28. For more information, visit the course website: nyulmc.org/cvinflammationcme.

“What we’re trying to do is help [other institutions] get that bandwidth” to adequately help and serve these patients, he said.

Dr. Garshick has received consultant fees from Abbvie and Horizon therapeutics and an unrestricted research grant from Pfizer. No other sources had relevant financial disclosures.

Clinical cardiologist Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, knows the value of working with her fellow rheumatologists, surgeons, and other clinicians to establish a care plan for her patients with cardiac conditions and autoimmune diseases.

She is the cofounder of the Cleveland Clinic’s new cardio-rheumatology program, which places an emphasis on multidisciplinary care. In her role, Dr. Wassif closely follows her patients, and if she sees any inflammation or any other condition that requires the rheumatologist, she reaches out to her colleagues to adjust medications if needed.

Collaboration with a rheumatologist was important when a patient with valvular disease was prepping for surgery. The patient was on significant immunosuppressants and the surgery had to be timed appropriately, accounting for any decreases in her immunosuppression, explained Dr. Wassif, director of inpatient clinical cardiology at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

Cardio-rheumatology programs are “the newest child” in a series of cardiology offshoots focusing on different populations. Cardio-oncology and cardio-obstetrics took off about 6 years ago, with cardio-rheumatology clinics and interested physicians rising in number over the last several years, Dr. Wassif noted.

The relationship between cardiovascular diseases and rheumatologic conditions is certainly recognized more often, “which means more literature is being published to discuss the link,” according to Rekha Mankad, MD, a trailblazer of this model of care. She directs the Women’s Heart Clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which was one of the earliest adopters of a cardio-rheumatology clinic.

Challenges of treating cardiac, rheumatologic conditions

The rise in clinics addresses the longstanding connection between autoimmune disorders and cardiac conditions.

Cardiologists have known that there is an element of inflammation that contributes to atherosclerosis, said Dr. Wassif, who has researched this topic extensively. A recent study she led found a strong association between rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and high risk of acute coronary syndrome in Medicare patients.

“This particular population has a very clear increased risk for cardiovascular conditions, including valve disease and heart failure,” she emphasized.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus have up to a twofold and eightfold higher risk of heart disease, respectively, noted Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiovascular disease specialist who directs the cardio-rheumatology program at NYU-Langone Health, in New York. Cardiologists “have really developed an understanding that the immune system can impact the heart, and that there’s a need for people to understand the nuance behind how the immune system can affect them and what to do about it,” Dr. Garshick said.

Courtesy Rob Lisak

‘Reading the tea leaves’

Each program has its own unique story. For the Cleveland Clinic, the concept of a cardio-rheumatology program began during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Developing such a concept and gaining institutional acceptance is always a work in process, Dr. Wassif said. “It’s not that you decide one day that you’re going to build a center, and that center is going to come into fruition overnight. You first gauge interest within your division. Who are the individuals that are interested in this area?”

Cleveland Clinic’s center is seeking to build relations between medical disciplines while spotlighting the concept of cardio-rheumatology, said Dr. Wassif, who has been providing education within the clinic and at other health institutions to ensure that patients receive appropriate attention early.

NYU-Langone launched its program amid this heightened awareness that the immune system could affect atherosclerosis, “kind of reading of the tea leaves, so to speak,” Dr. Garshick said.

Several clinical trials served as a catalyst for this movement. “A lot of clinical cardiologists were never 100% convinced that targeting the immune system reduced cardiovascular disease,” he said. Then the CANTOS clinical trial came along and showed for the first time that a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1beta, a cytokine central to inflammatory response, could in fact reduce cardiovascular disease.

Trials like this, along with epidemiologic literature connecting the rheumatologic and the autoimmune conditions with cardiovascular disease, pushed this concept to the forefront, Dr. Garshick said.

The notion that a clinic could successfully address cardiac problems in patients with rheumatic diseases yielded promising returns at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, according to a report presented at the 2018 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Researchers reported that patients with rheumatologic conditions who attended a cardio-rheumatology clinic at this center saw improvements in care. The clinic identified increased cardiovascular risk and early atherosclerosis, and 53.8% of patients altered their medications after being seen in the clinic.

A total of 39.7% and 32.1% received lipid lowering and antiplatelet therapies, respectively, and 14% received antihypertensive therapy. A small percentage were treated for heart failure or placed on lifelong anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, and one patient received a percutaneous coronary stent.
 

Ins and outs of the referral process

Initially designed for preventive cardiac risk assessment, Yale’s program evolved into a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach for the management of complex cardiovascular conditions in patients with autoimmune rheumatologic diseases.

The program is open to anyone who carries a diagnosis of rheumatologic disease or has elevated inflammatory markers. “Every patient, regardless of the reason for the referral, receives a cardiovascular risk assessment,” Dr. Furman said.

Harold Shapiro

A personalized assessment to reduce cardiac risk

NYU-Langone’s program offers opportunities to educate patients about the link between cardiac and rheumatologic disease.

“Their rheumatologist or their dermatologist will say, ‘Hey, have you heard about the connection between psoriasis, psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis, and heart disease and the risk of heart attack or stroke?’ ” Dr. Garshick said.

The patients will often say they know nothing about these connections and want to learn more about how to treat it.

“We’ll say, ‘we have someone here that can help you.’ They’ll send them to myself or other colleagues like me across the country. We’ll assess blood pressure, weight, lipids, hemoglobin A1c, and other serologic and oftentimes imaging biomarkers of cardiovascular risk.” The patients will receive a personalized assessment, listing things they can do to lower their risk, whether it’s diet, exercise, or lifestyle. “Many times it can involve medications to reduce heart disease risk,” said Dr. Garshick.

In some instances, a rheumatologist or dermatologist may be concerned about starting a patient on a specific medication for the disease such as a JAK inhibitor. “We’ll help assess their risk because there’s been a lot of literature out in the rheumatology world about the risk of JAK inhibitors and heart disease and blood clots,” said Dr. Garshick.

Dr. Garshick also sees patients with rheumatologic conditions who have a specific cardiovascular concern or complaint such as shortness of breath or chest pain. “We’ll work that up with a specific knowledge of the underlying immune condition and how that may impact their heart,” he said.
 

Advances in research

As they continue to see patients and devise specific care plans, developers of cardio-rheumatology programs have been supplementing their work with ongoing research.

Yale’s clinic is expanding this year to include a new attending physician, Attila Feher, MD, PhD, who has conducted research in autoimmunity and microcirculation using molecular imaging and multimodality imaging techniques. Prevalence of coronary microvascular dysfunction appears to be increased in this patient population, Dr. Furman said.

Dr. Wassif recently coauthored a paper that examined patients with underlying rheumatologic conditions who undergo valvular and aortic valve replacement. “To our surprise, there was really no difference between patients with autoimmune conditions and others with nonautoimmune conditions,” she said, adding that the study had its limitations.

Other work includes data on Medicare patients with ST- and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarctions who have an underlying autoimmune disorder. Dr. Wassif and her colleagues found that their long-term outcomes are worse than those of patients without these conditions. “It’s unclear if worse outcomes are related to complications of autoimmunity versus the extent of their underlying disease. This is a work in progress and certainly an area that is ripe for research.”

Dr. Garshick and other collaborators at NYU have been focusing on the endothelium, specifically platelet biology in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and lupus. “We’re about to start the same research with gout as well,” he said.

“The process we’re most interested in is understanding how these diseases impact the early stages of cholesterol. And the way we’re doing that is evaluating the vasculature, specifically the endothelium,” he said.

He has finished two clinical trials that evaluate how standard heart disease medications such as aspirin and statins impact or can potentially benefit patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis. “We have a whole list of other trials in the pipeline with other institutions across the country.”

Through a grant, Dr. Mankad is assessing whether a PET scan could detect inflammation in the hearts of rheumatoid arthritis patients. “We’re looking to see if the reason these patients have heart failure later in life is because their heart muscle actually shows evidence of inflammation, even when they have no symptoms,” she explained.

Other tests such as echocardiogram and CT scans will be used to evaluate coronary disease in about 40-50 patients. The goal of using these multiple imaging tools is to find markers indicating that the heart is affected by rheumatoid arthritis, which may indicate a higher likelihood of developing heart failure, she said.
 

Clinics are popping up

Through these new clinics, some collaborations have emerged. Dr. Garshick works closely with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which has a similar cardio-rheumatology program, run by Brittany Weber, MD, to exchange ideas, discuss challenging cases, and collaborate.

“There are a lot of clinics like us popping up across the country,” he observed. Every so often, he hears from other institutions that are interested in starting their own cardio-rheumatology programs. “They ask us: How do you start, what should we look for?”

It’s an education process for both patients and providers, Dr. Garshick emphasized. “I also think it’s a bandwidth issue. Many of our rheumatology and dermatology colleagues are acutely aware of the connection, but there may not be enough time at a clinic visit to really go in depth” with these dual conditions, he said.

NYU-Langone Health for the past several years has been holding a symposium to educate people on the cardio-rheumatology connection and treating inflammation in cardiovascular disease. This year’s symposium, held in conjunction with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, is scheduled for April 28. For more information, visit the course website: nyulmc.org/cvinflammationcme.

“What we’re trying to do is help [other institutions] get that bandwidth” to adequately help and serve these patients, he said.

Dr. Garshick has received consultant fees from Abbvie and Horizon therapeutics and an unrestricted research grant from Pfizer. No other sources had relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – After Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, and colleagues published results of a multicenter study reporting that one treatment with the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser cleared nonaggressive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the trunk and extremities in 90% of patients, she heard from colleagues who were skeptical of the approach.

Maybe it’s just the biopsy alone that’s clearing these tumors, some told her. Others postulated that since the energy was delivered with a 5- to 6-mm spot size at a fluence of 125-140 J/cm² and a 7- to 10-ms pulse duration, bulk heating likely disrupted the tumors. However, treatments were generally well tolerated, required no anesthesia, and caused no significant adverse events.

“It’s almost scarless,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Sometimes the treatment does leave a mark, but I think the scars are always acceptable. We do have good histologic evidence that we can penetrate 2.15 mm, which is a lot deeper than what the pulsed-dye laser or other superficial wavelengths are able to penetrate.”

Data is well powered to reject the null hypothesis that laser treatment does not have an effect on nodular and superficial BCC lesions, she continued, noting that it is at least comparable if not superior with clearance rates reported for methyl aminolevulinate–PDT (73%), imiquimod cream (83%), and fluorouracil cream (80%). “Maybe we’re not specifically targeting the vasculature [with this approach], but we did some optical coherence tomography imaging and saw that the blood vessels in the tumor were coagulated while the vasculature in the surrounding normal skin were spared,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is also vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

In a more recent analysis, she and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed long-term outcomes in 11 patients with BCC who had 16 lesions treated with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser. At a mean of 9 months, 100% of lesions remained clear as determined by clinical observation.

In a subsequent, as yet unpublished study, she and her collaborators followed 34 patients with BCC one year following laser treatment. “Of these, 33 had no recurrence at 1-year follow-up,” Dr. Ortiz said, noting that the one patient with a recurrence was on a biologic agent for Crohn’s disease.

One key advantage of using the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser for nonaggressive BCC is the potential for one treatment visit. “They don’t have to come back for suture removal,” she said. “It’s a quick procedure, takes only about 5 minutes. There’s no limitation on activity and there’s minimal wound care, light ointment, and a band-aid; that’s it.”

In addition, she said, there is a lower risk of complications, infections, and bleeding, and there is minimal scarring. It is “also an alternative for treating patients with multiple tumors or those who are poor surgical candidates, such as the elderly and those with Gorlin syndrome.”

Dr. Ortiz avoids treating aggressive subtypes “because we don’t know what margin to treat,” she added. “Avoid the face. I do make some exceptions for patients if they’re elderly or if they’ve had multiple tumors. Monitor for recurrence like you would using any other modality.”

She uses lidocaine without epinephrine to avoid vasoconstriction and treats with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser as follows: a 5-mm spot size, a fluence of 140 J/cm², and a pulse duration of 8 ms, with no cooling, which are the settings for the Excel V Laser System, she noted. “If you’re using a different Nd:YAG laser, your pulse duration may vary. I do let the device cool in between pulses to avoid bulk heating.”

The immediate endpoint to strive for is slight greying and slight contraction, and the procedure is covered by insurance, billed as malignant destruction/EDC (CPT codes 17260-17266 trunk and 17280-17283 face). “I do biopsy prior to treatment,” she said. “I like the biopsy to be healed when I’m using the laser, so I’ll treat them about a month later.”

As for future directions, Dr. Ortiz and colleagues plan to evaluate the use of gold nanoparticles to more selectively target BCC during treatment with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser. For now, she sees no downside of the procedure for proper candidates. “I do think that patients really like it,” she said. “It’s effective and easy.”

Dr. Ortiz disclosed having financial relationships with several pharmaceutical and device companies. She is also cochair of the MOAS.





 

SAN DIEGO – After Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, and colleagues published results of a multicenter study reporting that one treatment with the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser cleared nonaggressive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the trunk and extremities in 90% of patients, she heard from colleagues who were skeptical of the approach.

Maybe it’s just the biopsy alone that’s clearing these tumors, some told her. Others postulated that since the energy was delivered with a 5- to 6-mm spot size at a fluence of 125-140 J/cm² and a 7- to 10-ms pulse duration, bulk heating likely disrupted the tumors. However, treatments were generally well tolerated, required no anesthesia, and caused no significant adverse events.

“It’s almost scarless,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Sometimes the treatment does leave a mark, but I think the scars are always acceptable. We do have good histologic evidence that we can penetrate 2.15 mm, which is a lot deeper than what the pulsed-dye laser or other superficial wavelengths are able to penetrate.”

Data is well powered to reject the null hypothesis that laser treatment does not have an effect on nodular and superficial BCC lesions, she continued, noting that it is at least comparable if not superior with clearance rates reported for methyl aminolevulinate–PDT (73%), imiquimod cream (83%), and fluorouracil cream (80%). “Maybe we’re not specifically targeting the vasculature [with this approach], but we did some optical coherence tomography imaging and saw that the blood vessels in the tumor were coagulated while the vasculature in the surrounding normal skin were spared,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is also vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

In a more recent analysis, she and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed long-term outcomes in 11 patients with BCC who had 16 lesions treated with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser. At a mean of 9 months, 100% of lesions remained clear as determined by clinical observation.

In a subsequent, as yet unpublished study, she and her collaborators followed 34 patients with BCC one year following laser treatment. “Of these, 33 had no recurrence at 1-year follow-up,” Dr. Ortiz said, noting that the one patient with a recurrence was on a biologic agent for Crohn’s disease.

One key advantage of using the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser for nonaggressive BCC is the potential for one treatment visit. “They don’t have to come back for suture removal,” she said. “It’s a quick procedure, takes only about 5 minutes. There’s no limitation on activity and there’s minimal wound care, light ointment, and a band-aid; that’s it.”

In addition, she said, there is a lower risk of complications, infections, and bleeding, and there is minimal scarring. It is “also an alternative for treating patients with multiple tumors or those who are poor surgical candidates, such as the elderly and those with Gorlin syndrome.”

Dr. Ortiz avoids treating aggressive subtypes “because we don’t know what margin to treat,” she added. “Avoid the face. I do make some exceptions for patients if they’re elderly or if they’ve had multiple tumors. Monitor for recurrence like you would using any other modality.”

She uses lidocaine without epinephrine to avoid vasoconstriction and treats with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser as follows: a 5-mm spot size, a fluence of 140 J/cm², and a pulse duration of 8 ms, with no cooling, which are the settings for the Excel V Laser System, she noted. “If you’re using a different Nd:YAG laser, your pulse duration may vary. I do let the device cool in between pulses to avoid bulk heating.”

The immediate endpoint to strive for is slight greying and slight contraction, and the procedure is covered by insurance, billed as malignant destruction/EDC (CPT codes 17260-17266 trunk and 17280-17283 face). “I do biopsy prior to treatment,” she said. “I like the biopsy to be healed when I’m using the laser, so I’ll treat them about a month later.”

As for future directions, Dr. Ortiz and colleagues plan to evaluate the use of gold nanoparticles to more selectively target BCC during treatment with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser. For now, she sees no downside of the procedure for proper candidates. “I do think that patients really like it,” she said. “It’s effective and easy.”

Dr. Ortiz disclosed having financial relationships with several pharmaceutical and device companies. She is also cochair of the MOAS.





 

SAN DIEGO – After Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, and colleagues published results of a multicenter study reporting that one treatment with the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser cleared nonaggressive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the trunk and extremities in 90% of patients, she heard from colleagues who were skeptical of the approach.

Maybe it’s just the biopsy alone that’s clearing these tumors, some told her. Others postulated that since the energy was delivered with a 5- to 6-mm spot size at a fluence of 125-140 J/cm² and a 7- to 10-ms pulse duration, bulk heating likely disrupted the tumors. However, treatments were generally well tolerated, required no anesthesia, and caused no significant adverse events.

“It’s almost scarless,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Sometimes the treatment does leave a mark, but I think the scars are always acceptable. We do have good histologic evidence that we can penetrate 2.15 mm, which is a lot deeper than what the pulsed-dye laser or other superficial wavelengths are able to penetrate.”

Data is well powered to reject the null hypothesis that laser treatment does not have an effect on nodular and superficial BCC lesions, she continued, noting that it is at least comparable if not superior with clearance rates reported for methyl aminolevulinate–PDT (73%), imiquimod cream (83%), and fluorouracil cream (80%). “Maybe we’re not specifically targeting the vasculature [with this approach], but we did some optical coherence tomography imaging and saw that the blood vessels in the tumor were coagulated while the vasculature in the surrounding normal skin were spared,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is also vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

In a more recent analysis, she and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed long-term outcomes in 11 patients with BCC who had 16 lesions treated with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser. At a mean of 9 months, 100% of lesions remained clear as determined by clinical observation.

In a subsequent, as yet unpublished study, she and her collaborators followed 34 patients with BCC one year following laser treatment. “Of these, 33 had no recurrence at 1-year follow-up,” Dr. Ortiz said, noting that the one patient with a recurrence was on a biologic agent for Crohn’s disease.

One key advantage of using the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser for nonaggressive BCC is the potential for one treatment visit. “They don’t have to come back for suture removal,” she said. “It’s a quick procedure, takes only about 5 minutes. There’s no limitation on activity and there’s minimal wound care, light ointment, and a band-aid; that’s it.”

In addition, she said, there is a lower risk of complications, infections, and bleeding, and there is minimal scarring. It is “also an alternative for treating patients with multiple tumors or those who are poor surgical candidates, such as the elderly and those with Gorlin syndrome.”

Dr. Ortiz avoids treating aggressive subtypes “because we don’t know what margin to treat,” she added. “Avoid the face. I do make some exceptions for patients if they’re elderly or if they’ve had multiple tumors. Monitor for recurrence like you would using any other modality.”

She uses lidocaine without epinephrine to avoid vasoconstriction and treats with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser as follows: a 5-mm spot size, a fluence of 140 J/cm², and a pulse duration of 8 ms, with no cooling, which are the settings for the Excel V Laser System, she noted. “If you’re using a different Nd:YAG laser, your pulse duration may vary. I do let the device cool in between pulses to avoid bulk heating.”

The immediate endpoint to strive for is slight greying and slight contraction, and the procedure is covered by insurance, billed as malignant destruction/EDC (CPT codes 17260-17266 trunk and 17280-17283 face). “I do biopsy prior to treatment,” she said. “I like the biopsy to be healed when I’m using the laser, so I’ll treat them about a month later.”

As for future directions, Dr. Ortiz and colleagues plan to evaluate the use of gold nanoparticles to more selectively target BCC during treatment with the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser. For now, she sees no downside of the procedure for proper candidates. “I do think that patients really like it,” she said. “It’s effective and easy.”

Dr. Ortiz disclosed having financial relationships with several pharmaceutical and device companies. She is also cochair of the MOAS.