News

A proinflammatory diet, as measured by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), is associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia, although not Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new analysis of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

The lack of an association with Alzheimer’s disease was a surprise because amyloid-beta prompts microglia and astrocytes to release markers of systemic inflammation, according to Debora Melo van Lent, PhD, who is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health San Antonio – Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases. “We expected to see a relationship between higher DII scores and an increased risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Melo van Lent, who presented the findings at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Dr. Melo van Lent added that the most likely explanation is that the study was underpowered to produce a positive association, and the team is conducting further study in a larger population.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The study is the first to look at all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia and their association with DII, Dr. Melo van Lent said.

“As diet is a modifiable risk factor, we can actually do something about it. If we take a closer look at five components of the DII which are most anti-inflammatory, these components are present in green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, soy, whole grains, and green and black tea. Most of these components are included in the Mediterranean diet. When we look at the three most proinflammatory components, they are present in high caloric products; such as butter or margarine, pastries and sweets, fried snacks, and red or processed meat. These components are present in ‘Western diets,’ which are discouraged,” said Dr. Melo van Lent.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,486 participants who were free of dementia, stroke, or other neurologic diseases at baseline. They analyzed DII scores both in a continuous range and divided into quartiles, using the first quartile as a reference.

The mean age of participants was 69 years, and 53% were women. During follow-up, 11.3% developed AD dementia, and 14.8% developed non-AD dementia.

In the continuous model, DII was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia after adjusting for age, sex, APOE E4 status, body mass index, smoking, physical activity index score, total energy intake, lipid-lowering medications, and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio (hazard ratio, 1.18; P =.001). In the quartile analysis, after adjustments, compared with quartile 1, there was an increased risk of all-cause dementia for those in quartile 3 (HR, 1.69; P =.020) and quartile 4 (HR, 1.84; P =.013).

In the continuous analysis, after adjustments, there was an association between DII score and Alzheimer’s dementia (HR, 1.15; P =.020). In the quartile analysis, no associations were significant, though there was a trend of quartile 4 versus quartile 1 (HR, 1.65; P =.077).

The researchers found no significant interactions between higher DII scores and sex, the APOE E4 allele, or physical activity with respect to all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s dementia.
 

Intertwined variables

The results were interesting, but cause and effect relationships can be difficult to tease out from such a study, according to Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Sexton noted that individuals who eat well are more likely to have energy to exercise, which could in turn help them to sleep better, and all of those factors could be involved in reducing dementia risk. “They’re all kind of intertwined. So in this study, they were taking into account physical activity, but they can’t take into account every single variable. It’s important for them to be followed up by randomized control trials.”

Dr. Sexton also referenced the U.S. Pointer study being conducted by the Alzheimer’s Association, which is examining various interventions related to diet, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation. “Whether intervening and improving people’s health behaviors then goes on to reduce their risk for dementia is a key question. We still need more results from studies to be reporting out before we get definitive answers,” she said.

The study was funded by the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation. Dr. Melo van Lent and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

A proinflammatory diet, as measured by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), is associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia, although not Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new analysis of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

The lack of an association with Alzheimer’s disease was a surprise because amyloid-beta prompts microglia and astrocytes to release markers of systemic inflammation, according to Debora Melo van Lent, PhD, who is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health San Antonio – Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases. “We expected to see a relationship between higher DII scores and an increased risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Melo van Lent, who presented the findings at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Dr. Melo van Lent added that the most likely explanation is that the study was underpowered to produce a positive association, and the team is conducting further study in a larger population.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The study is the first to look at all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia and their association with DII, Dr. Melo van Lent said.

“As diet is a modifiable risk factor, we can actually do something about it. If we take a closer look at five components of the DII which are most anti-inflammatory, these components are present in green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, soy, whole grains, and green and black tea. Most of these components are included in the Mediterranean diet. When we look at the three most proinflammatory components, they are present in high caloric products; such as butter or margarine, pastries and sweets, fried snacks, and red or processed meat. These components are present in ‘Western diets,’ which are discouraged,” said Dr. Melo van Lent.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,486 participants who were free of dementia, stroke, or other neurologic diseases at baseline. They analyzed DII scores both in a continuous range and divided into quartiles, using the first quartile as a reference.

The mean age of participants was 69 years, and 53% were women. During follow-up, 11.3% developed AD dementia, and 14.8% developed non-AD dementia.

In the continuous model, DII was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia after adjusting for age, sex, APOE E4 status, body mass index, smoking, physical activity index score, total energy intake, lipid-lowering medications, and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio (hazard ratio, 1.18; P =.001). In the quartile analysis, after adjustments, compared with quartile 1, there was an increased risk of all-cause dementia for those in quartile 3 (HR, 1.69; P =.020) and quartile 4 (HR, 1.84; P =.013).

In the continuous analysis, after adjustments, there was an association between DII score and Alzheimer’s dementia (HR, 1.15; P =.020). In the quartile analysis, no associations were significant, though there was a trend of quartile 4 versus quartile 1 (HR, 1.65; P =.077).

The researchers found no significant interactions between higher DII scores and sex, the APOE E4 allele, or physical activity with respect to all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s dementia.
 

Intertwined variables

The results were interesting, but cause and effect relationships can be difficult to tease out from such a study, according to Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Sexton noted that individuals who eat well are more likely to have energy to exercise, which could in turn help them to sleep better, and all of those factors could be involved in reducing dementia risk. “They’re all kind of intertwined. So in this study, they were taking into account physical activity, but they can’t take into account every single variable. It’s important for them to be followed up by randomized control trials.”

Dr. Sexton also referenced the U.S. Pointer study being conducted by the Alzheimer’s Association, which is examining various interventions related to diet, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation. “Whether intervening and improving people’s health behaviors then goes on to reduce their risk for dementia is a key question. We still need more results from studies to be reporting out before we get definitive answers,” she said.

The study was funded by the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation. Dr. Melo van Lent and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

A proinflammatory diet, as measured by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), is associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia, although not Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new analysis of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

The lack of an association with Alzheimer’s disease was a surprise because amyloid-beta prompts microglia and astrocytes to release markers of systemic inflammation, according to Debora Melo van Lent, PhD, who is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health San Antonio – Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases. “We expected to see a relationship between higher DII scores and an increased risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Melo van Lent, who presented the findings at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Dr. Melo van Lent added that the most likely explanation is that the study was underpowered to produce a positive association, and the team is conducting further study in a larger population.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The study is the first to look at all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia and their association with DII, Dr. Melo van Lent said.

“As diet is a modifiable risk factor, we can actually do something about it. If we take a closer look at five components of the DII which are most anti-inflammatory, these components are present in green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, soy, whole grains, and green and black tea. Most of these components are included in the Mediterranean diet. When we look at the three most proinflammatory components, they are present in high caloric products; such as butter or margarine, pastries and sweets, fried snacks, and red or processed meat. These components are present in ‘Western diets,’ which are discouraged,” said Dr. Melo van Lent.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,486 participants who were free of dementia, stroke, or other neurologic diseases at baseline. They analyzed DII scores both in a continuous range and divided into quartiles, using the first quartile as a reference.

The mean age of participants was 69 years, and 53% were women. During follow-up, 11.3% developed AD dementia, and 14.8% developed non-AD dementia.

In the continuous model, DII was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia after adjusting for age, sex, APOE E4 status, body mass index, smoking, physical activity index score, total energy intake, lipid-lowering medications, and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio (hazard ratio, 1.18; P =.001). In the quartile analysis, after adjustments, compared with quartile 1, there was an increased risk of all-cause dementia for those in quartile 3 (HR, 1.69; P =.020) and quartile 4 (HR, 1.84; P =.013).

In the continuous analysis, after adjustments, there was an association between DII score and Alzheimer’s dementia (HR, 1.15; P =.020). In the quartile analysis, no associations were significant, though there was a trend of quartile 4 versus quartile 1 (HR, 1.65; P =.077).

The researchers found no significant interactions between higher DII scores and sex, the APOE E4 allele, or physical activity with respect to all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s dementia.
 

Intertwined variables

The results were interesting, but cause and effect relationships can be difficult to tease out from such a study, according to Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Sexton noted that individuals who eat well are more likely to have energy to exercise, which could in turn help them to sleep better, and all of those factors could be involved in reducing dementia risk. “They’re all kind of intertwined. So in this study, they were taking into account physical activity, but they can’t take into account every single variable. It’s important for them to be followed up by randomized control trials.”

Dr. Sexton also referenced the U.S. Pointer study being conducted by the Alzheimer’s Association, which is examining various interventions related to diet, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation. “Whether intervening and improving people’s health behaviors then goes on to reduce their risk for dementia is a key question. We still need more results from studies to be reporting out before we get definitive answers,” she said.

The study was funded by the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation. Dr. Melo van Lent and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.

“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27. 

A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.

“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.

“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”

“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”

He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”

“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The problem is if the virus changes in such a way that the spike protein – which the antibodies from the vaccine are directed against – are no longer effective at binding and destroying the virus, and the virus escapes immune surveillance,” Dr. Nelson said.

If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
 

Technology to the rescue?

The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.

“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.

“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
 

Nothing appears certain

When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.

“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”

Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.

Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
 

Mutations not the only concern

Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.

Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.

“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”

“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
 

Protected, for now

Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.

On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.

“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27. 

A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.

“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.

“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”

“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”

He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”

“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The problem is if the virus changes in such a way that the spike protein – which the antibodies from the vaccine are directed against – are no longer effective at binding and destroying the virus, and the virus escapes immune surveillance,” Dr. Nelson said.

If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
 

Technology to the rescue?

The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.

“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.

“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
 

Nothing appears certain

When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.

“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”

Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.

Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
 

Mutations not the only concern

Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.

Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.

“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”

“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
 

Protected, for now

Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.

On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.

“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27. 

A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.

“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.

“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”

“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”

He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”

“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The problem is if the virus changes in such a way that the spike protein – which the antibodies from the vaccine are directed against – are no longer effective at binding and destroying the virus, and the virus escapes immune surveillance,” Dr. Nelson said.

If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
 

Technology to the rescue?

The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.

“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.

“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
 

Nothing appears certain

When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.

“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”

Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.

Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
 

Mutations not the only concern

Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.

Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.

“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”

“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
 

Protected, for now

Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.

On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce this week that new data show people vaccinated against COVID-19 who become infected with the Delta variant can spread it and infect others, The New York Times reported late on July 29.

The revelation is one reason the agency reversed course this week and said fully vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks in many cases.

The new findings also are a reversal from what scientists had believed to be true about other variants of the virus, the Times said. The bottom line is that the CDC data show people with so-called breakthrough cases of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they do not show symptoms.

ABC News reported earlier on July 29 that the CDC’s updated mask guidance followed an outbreak in Cape Cod, where crowds gathered for the Fourth of July.

As of July 29, 882 people were tied to the outbreak centered in Provincetown, Mass. Of those who live in Massachusetts, 74% were unvaccinated. ABC said the majority were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce this week that new data show people vaccinated against COVID-19 who become infected with the Delta variant can spread it and infect others, The New York Times reported late on July 29.

The revelation is one reason the agency reversed course this week and said fully vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks in many cases.

The new findings also are a reversal from what scientists had believed to be true about other variants of the virus, the Times said. The bottom line is that the CDC data show people with so-called breakthrough cases of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they do not show symptoms.

ABC News reported earlier on July 29 that the CDC’s updated mask guidance followed an outbreak in Cape Cod, where crowds gathered for the Fourth of July.

As of July 29, 882 people were tied to the outbreak centered in Provincetown, Mass. Of those who live in Massachusetts, 74% were unvaccinated. ABC said the majority were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce this week that new data show people vaccinated against COVID-19 who become infected with the Delta variant can spread it and infect others, The New York Times reported late on July 29.

The revelation is one reason the agency reversed course this week and said fully vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks in many cases.

The new findings also are a reversal from what scientists had believed to be true about other variants of the virus, the Times said. The bottom line is that the CDC data show people with so-called breakthrough cases of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they do not show symptoms.

ABC News reported earlier on July 29 that the CDC’s updated mask guidance followed an outbreak in Cape Cod, where crowds gathered for the Fourth of July.

As of July 29, 882 people were tied to the outbreak centered in Provincetown, Mass. Of those who live in Massachusetts, 74% were unvaccinated. ABC said the majority were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

A Tennessee woman is suing a family physician and physician assistant (PA) after her husband’s death from COVID-19, claiming the health providers failed to properly test the man and rendered improper care that led to his demise.

Shirley Dimoh of Memphis alleges her husband Peter Dimoh, 66, received inadequate care when he presented with COVID-19 symptoms to May Medical Group in Munford, Tenn., on November 19, 2020. Physician assistant Robert Moody ordered a COVID-19 blood test for Mr. Dimoh, rather than a nasal swab test, which was sent to an Atlanta lab for analysis, according to the lawsuit.

By the time the Dimohs were informed of the positive result on November 23, Mr. Dimoh was seriously ill and showed signs of severe infection, the claim alleges. Family physician David Krapf, DO, then prescribed methocarbamol, a muscle relaxant, which the complaint claims exacerbated Mr. Dimoh’s infection, caused serious adverse reactions, and led to his death on December 16, 2020.

“Mr. Dimoh had multiple comorbid conditions and he had a positive test, he should have been referred to a specialist at a higher level of care,” said Duncan E. Ragsdale, a Memphis-based attorney representing Shirley Dimoh. “This is not something for a family physician or a physician assistant to be attempting to handle. It’s my belief this was a preventable death.”

Shirley Dimoh filed a lawsuit against May Medical Group, Moody, Krapf, and several others on June 23, 2021, in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, 13th Judicial District. She accuses the group of negligence, failure to refer, and failure to supervise, among other claims. She is requesting $5 million in damages.

May Medical Group did not return phone or email messages seeking comment for this story. The group had not issued a reply to the lawsuit as of this article’s deadline. An attorney for the practice is not yet listed in court records.
 

Wife had COVID-19 first, treated by same PA

Shirley Dimoh was the first of the couple to contract COVID-19. She visited May Medical Group with COVID-19 symptoms on November 9, according to the lawsuit. The same physician assistant allegedly prescribed antibiotics and sent Shirley Dimoh to the health department for a rapid nasal swab test. After a positive test resulted, she was prescribed more antibiotics, steroids, and other medications, according to the claim. She recovered without complications.

The plaintiff alleges the medical practice did not warn Peter Dimoh of the risk of contracting COVID-19 from contact with Shirley Dimoh or offer prophylactics against infection. Peter Dimoh had underlying conditions that included diabetes and kidney failure, according to Mr. Ragsdale.

It’s unclear why Peter Dimoh may have been prescribed methocarbamol after his positive COVID-19 test on November 23. The same day, Shirley Dimoh went to the pharmacy to pick up her husband’s prescription because he was too sick to go himself, the complaint states. Mr. Dimoh took the medication three times a day as prescribed. The methocarbamol was “unreasonably dangerous” for Mr. Dimoh at the time and caused an injury he would have not incurred otherwise, the suit claims.

On November 28, Mr. Dimoh collapsed and was taken by ambulance to Methodist Hospital in Memphis. He was treated for COVID-19 as well as bacterial pneumonia, severe sepsis, and sytemic inflammatory response syndrome, according to the complaint. He died December 16 from respiratory and heart failure.

“What’s interesting about this case is that you’ve got a good example and a bad example together,” Mr. Ragsdale said. “In other words, the good example is they treated her appropriately, she recovered. They didn’t treat him at all, he died. I don’t know how you could have a better counter position established by the same practice.”
 

Family has sued for malpractice before

Before his death, Peter Dimoh was the plaintiff in another medical negligence suit. In 2013, he sued the Center for Oral and Facial Surgery of Memphis and two oral surgeons for allegedly operating on him improperly and causing an adverse outcome.  

Mr. Dimoh underwent oral surgery on February 8, 2012, at the center. The day of his operation, Mr. Dimoh’s A1c and glucose levels were grossly elevated, according to the claim, which was also represented by Mr. Ragsdale. Surgeons concluded, incorrectly, that Mr. Dimoh’s diabetes was under control, the complaint alleges, failed to order preoperative antibiotics, operated on him, and caused a bacterial infection at the operative site. The infection allegedly resulted in osteomyelitis of Mr. Dimoh’s left mandible with a pathologic fracture.

The complaint also alleges that although Mr. Dimoh signed a consent form for the surgery, the defendants failed to obtain his consent because they were unaware his diabetes was not under control and they did not explain the risks of surgery while in such a condition. The suit alleges lack of informed consent, negligence, and gross negligence by the practice and requests $2 million in damages. 

Court documents show the suit was voluntarily withdrawn in 2018 without prejudice and reissued in 2019. In January 2021, the court was given notice of Mr. Dimoh’s death, and a motion was made to substitute another plaintiff, according to Shelby County court records.

An attorney for the Center for Oral and Facial Surgery of Memphis did not return a message seeking comment.

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

A Tennessee woman is suing a family physician and physician assistant (PA) after her husband’s death from COVID-19, claiming the health providers failed to properly test the man and rendered improper care that led to his demise.

Shirley Dimoh of Memphis alleges her husband Peter Dimoh, 66, received inadequate care when he presented with COVID-19 symptoms to May Medical Group in Munford, Tenn., on November 19, 2020. Physician assistant Robert Moody ordered a COVID-19 blood test for Mr. Dimoh, rather than a nasal swab test, which was sent to an Atlanta lab for analysis, according to the lawsuit.

By the time the Dimohs were informed of the positive result on November 23, Mr. Dimoh was seriously ill and showed signs of severe infection, the claim alleges. Family physician David Krapf, DO, then prescribed methocarbamol, a muscle relaxant, which the complaint claims exacerbated Mr. Dimoh’s infection, caused serious adverse reactions, and led to his death on December 16, 2020.

“Mr. Dimoh had multiple comorbid conditions and he had a positive test, he should have been referred to a specialist at a higher level of care,” said Duncan E. Ragsdale, a Memphis-based attorney representing Shirley Dimoh. “This is not something for a family physician or a physician assistant to be attempting to handle. It’s my belief this was a preventable death.”

Shirley Dimoh filed a lawsuit against May Medical Group, Moody, Krapf, and several others on June 23, 2021, in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, 13th Judicial District. She accuses the group of negligence, failure to refer, and failure to supervise, among other claims. She is requesting $5 million in damages.

May Medical Group did not return phone or email messages seeking comment for this story. The group had not issued a reply to the lawsuit as of this article’s deadline. An attorney for the practice is not yet listed in court records.
 

Wife had COVID-19 first, treated by same PA

Shirley Dimoh was the first of the couple to contract COVID-19. She visited May Medical Group with COVID-19 symptoms on November 9, according to the lawsuit. The same physician assistant allegedly prescribed antibiotics and sent Shirley Dimoh to the health department for a rapid nasal swab test. After a positive test resulted, she was prescribed more antibiotics, steroids, and other medications, according to the claim. She recovered without complications.

The plaintiff alleges the medical practice did not warn Peter Dimoh of the risk of contracting COVID-19 from contact with Shirley Dimoh or offer prophylactics against infection. Peter Dimoh had underlying conditions that included diabetes and kidney failure, according to Mr. Ragsdale.

It’s unclear why Peter Dimoh may have been prescribed methocarbamol after his positive COVID-19 test on November 23. The same day, Shirley Dimoh went to the pharmacy to pick up her husband’s prescription because he was too sick to go himself, the complaint states. Mr. Dimoh took the medication three times a day as prescribed. The methocarbamol was “unreasonably dangerous” for Mr. Dimoh at the time and caused an injury he would have not incurred otherwise, the suit claims.

On November 28, Mr. Dimoh collapsed and was taken by ambulance to Methodist Hospital in Memphis. He was treated for COVID-19 as well as bacterial pneumonia, severe sepsis, and sytemic inflammatory response syndrome, according to the complaint. He died December 16 from respiratory and heart failure.

“What’s interesting about this case is that you’ve got a good example and a bad example together,” Mr. Ragsdale said. “In other words, the good example is they treated her appropriately, she recovered. They didn’t treat him at all, he died. I don’t know how you could have a better counter position established by the same practice.”
 

Family has sued for malpractice before

Before his death, Peter Dimoh was the plaintiff in another medical negligence suit. In 2013, he sued the Center for Oral and Facial Surgery of Memphis and two oral surgeons for allegedly operating on him improperly and causing an adverse outcome.  

Mr. Dimoh underwent oral surgery on February 8, 2012, at the center. The day of his operation, Mr. Dimoh’s A1c and glucose levels were grossly elevated, according to the claim, which was also represented by Mr. Ragsdale. Surgeons concluded, incorrectly, that Mr. Dimoh’s diabetes was under control, the complaint alleges, failed to order preoperative antibiotics, operated on him, and caused a bacterial infection at the operative site. The infection allegedly resulted in osteomyelitis of Mr. Dimoh’s left mandible with a pathologic fracture.

The complaint also alleges that although Mr. Dimoh signed a consent form for the surgery, the defendants failed to obtain his consent because they were unaware his diabetes was not under control and they did not explain the risks of surgery while in such a condition. The suit alleges lack of informed consent, negligence, and gross negligence by the practice and requests $2 million in damages. 

Court documents show the suit was voluntarily withdrawn in 2018 without prejudice and reissued in 2019. In January 2021, the court was given notice of Mr. Dimoh’s death, and a motion was made to substitute another plaintiff, according to Shelby County court records.

An attorney for the Center for Oral and Facial Surgery of Memphis did not return a message seeking comment.

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

A Tennessee woman is suing a family physician and physician assistant (PA) after her husband’s death from COVID-19, claiming the health providers failed to properly test the man and rendered improper care that led to his demise.

Shirley Dimoh of Memphis alleges her husband Peter Dimoh, 66, received inadequate care when he presented with COVID-19 symptoms to May Medical Group in Munford, Tenn., on November 19, 2020. Physician assistant Robert Moody ordered a COVID-19 blood test for Mr. Dimoh, rather than a nasal swab test, which was sent to an Atlanta lab for analysis, according to the lawsuit.

By the time the Dimohs were informed of the positive result on November 23, Mr. Dimoh was seriously ill and showed signs of severe infection, the claim alleges. Family physician David Krapf, DO, then prescribed methocarbamol, a muscle relaxant, which the complaint claims exacerbated Mr. Dimoh’s infection, caused serious adverse reactions, and led to his death on December 16, 2020.

“Mr. Dimoh had multiple comorbid conditions and he had a positive test, he should have been referred to a specialist at a higher level of care,” said Duncan E. Ragsdale, a Memphis-based attorney representing Shirley Dimoh. “This is not something for a family physician or a physician assistant to be attempting to handle. It’s my belief this was a preventable death.”

Shirley Dimoh filed a lawsuit against May Medical Group, Moody, Krapf, and several others on June 23, 2021, in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, 13th Judicial District. She accuses the group of negligence, failure to refer, and failure to supervise, among other claims. She is requesting $5 million in damages.

May Medical Group did not return phone or email messages seeking comment for this story. The group had not issued a reply to the lawsuit as of this article’s deadline. An attorney for the practice is not yet listed in court records.
 

Wife had COVID-19 first, treated by same PA

Shirley Dimoh was the first of the couple to contract COVID-19. She visited May Medical Group with COVID-19 symptoms on November 9, according to the lawsuit. The same physician assistant allegedly prescribed antibiotics and sent Shirley Dimoh to the health department for a rapid nasal swab test. After a positive test resulted, she was prescribed more antibiotics, steroids, and other medications, according to the claim. She recovered without complications.

The plaintiff alleges the medical practice did not warn Peter Dimoh of the risk of contracting COVID-19 from contact with Shirley Dimoh or offer prophylactics against infection. Peter Dimoh had underlying conditions that included diabetes and kidney failure, according to Mr. Ragsdale.

It’s unclear why Peter Dimoh may have been prescribed methocarbamol after his positive COVID-19 test on November 23. The same day, Shirley Dimoh went to the pharmacy to pick up her husband’s prescription because he was too sick to go himself, the complaint states. Mr. Dimoh took the medication three times a day as prescribed. The methocarbamol was “unreasonably dangerous” for Mr. Dimoh at the time and caused an injury he would have not incurred otherwise, the suit claims.

On November 28, Mr. Dimoh collapsed and was taken by ambulance to Methodist Hospital in Memphis. He was treated for COVID-19 as well as bacterial pneumonia, severe sepsis, and sytemic inflammatory response syndrome, according to the complaint. He died December 16 from respiratory and heart failure.

“What’s interesting about this case is that you’ve got a good example and a bad example together,” Mr. Ragsdale said. “In other words, the good example is they treated her appropriately, she recovered. They didn’t treat him at all, he died. I don’t know how you could have a better counter position established by the same practice.”
 

Family has sued for malpractice before

Before his death, Peter Dimoh was the plaintiff in another medical negligence suit. In 2013, he sued the Center for Oral and Facial Surgery of Memphis and two oral surgeons for allegedly operating on him improperly and causing an adverse outcome.  

Mr. Dimoh underwent oral surgery on February 8, 2012, at the center. The day of his operation, Mr. Dimoh’s A1c and glucose levels were grossly elevated, according to the claim, which was also represented by Mr. Ragsdale. Surgeons concluded, incorrectly, that Mr. Dimoh’s diabetes was under control, the complaint alleges, failed to order preoperative antibiotics, operated on him, and caused a bacterial infection at the operative site. The infection allegedly resulted in osteomyelitis of Mr. Dimoh’s left mandible with a pathologic fracture.

The complaint also alleges that although Mr. Dimoh signed a consent form for the surgery, the defendants failed to obtain his consent because they were unaware his diabetes was not under control and they did not explain the risks of surgery while in such a condition. The suit alleges lack of informed consent, negligence, and gross negligence by the practice and requests $2 million in damages. 

Court documents show the suit was voluntarily withdrawn in 2018 without prejudice and reissued in 2019. In January 2021, the court was given notice of Mr. Dimoh’s death, and a motion was made to substitute another plaintiff, according to Shelby County court records.

An attorney for the Center for Oral and Facial Surgery of Memphis did not return a message seeking comment.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine continues to show strong protection against serious illness and hospitalization after 6 months, but overall protection against the virus appears to wane after a half a year, according to a new study.

The July 28 preprint report of the study, which has not been peer reviewed, suggests a gradual “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” over 6 months after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 45,000 people worldwide.

The study finds overall effectiveness falls from 96% to 84%.

At the same time, a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels against the Delta variant by more than five times, compared to levels after just a second dose in people aged 18-55 years, new data from Pfizer shows.

The third-dose immune response appears even more robust – more than 11 times higher than the second shot – among people aged 65-85 years.

The company noted this could mean an estimated 100-fold increase in Delta variant protection after a third dose. These new findings are outlined in a Pfizer second-quarter 2021 earnings report, which notes that the data are submitted for publication in a medical journal.

The data come from a relatively small number of people studied. There were 11 people in the 18- to 55-year-old group and 12 people in the 65- to 85-year-old group.

“These preliminary data are very encouraging as Delta continues to spread,” Mikael Dolsten, MD, chief scientific officer and president of the Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical organization at Pfizer, said during prepared remarks on a company earnings call July 28, CNN reported.

Availability of a third dose of any of the current COVID-19 vaccines would require amendment of the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization, or full FDA approval for the vaccine.

The possibility of a third dose authorization or approval has not been without controversy. For example, when Pfizer announced intentions to file for FDA authorization of a booster dose on July 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health were quick to issue a joint statement saying they would decide when the timing is right for Americans to have a third immunization. The agencies stated, in part, “We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.”

In addition, the World Health Organization said at a media briefing on July 12 that rich countries should prioritize sharing of COVID-19 vaccine supplies to other countries in need worldwide before allocating doses for a booster shot for its own residents.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine continues to show strong protection against serious illness and hospitalization after 6 months, but overall protection against the virus appears to wane after a half a year, according to a new study.

The July 28 preprint report of the study, which has not been peer reviewed, suggests a gradual “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” over 6 months after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 45,000 people worldwide.

The study finds overall effectiveness falls from 96% to 84%.

At the same time, a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels against the Delta variant by more than five times, compared to levels after just a second dose in people aged 18-55 years, new data from Pfizer shows.

The third-dose immune response appears even more robust – more than 11 times higher than the second shot – among people aged 65-85 years.

The company noted this could mean an estimated 100-fold increase in Delta variant protection after a third dose. These new findings are outlined in a Pfizer second-quarter 2021 earnings report, which notes that the data are submitted for publication in a medical journal.

The data come from a relatively small number of people studied. There were 11 people in the 18- to 55-year-old group and 12 people in the 65- to 85-year-old group.

“These preliminary data are very encouraging as Delta continues to spread,” Mikael Dolsten, MD, chief scientific officer and president of the Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical organization at Pfizer, said during prepared remarks on a company earnings call July 28, CNN reported.

Availability of a third dose of any of the current COVID-19 vaccines would require amendment of the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization, or full FDA approval for the vaccine.

The possibility of a third dose authorization or approval has not been without controversy. For example, when Pfizer announced intentions to file for FDA authorization of a booster dose on July 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health were quick to issue a joint statement saying they would decide when the timing is right for Americans to have a third immunization. The agencies stated, in part, “We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.”

In addition, the World Health Organization said at a media briefing on July 12 that rich countries should prioritize sharing of COVID-19 vaccine supplies to other countries in need worldwide before allocating doses for a booster shot for its own residents.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine continues to show strong protection against serious illness and hospitalization after 6 months, but overall protection against the virus appears to wane after a half a year, according to a new study.

The July 28 preprint report of the study, which has not been peer reviewed, suggests a gradual “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” over 6 months after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 45,000 people worldwide.

The study finds overall effectiveness falls from 96% to 84%.

At the same time, a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels against the Delta variant by more than five times, compared to levels after just a second dose in people aged 18-55 years, new data from Pfizer shows.

The third-dose immune response appears even more robust – more than 11 times higher than the second shot – among people aged 65-85 years.

The company noted this could mean an estimated 100-fold increase in Delta variant protection after a third dose. These new findings are outlined in a Pfizer second-quarter 2021 earnings report, which notes that the data are submitted for publication in a medical journal.

The data come from a relatively small number of people studied. There were 11 people in the 18- to 55-year-old group and 12 people in the 65- to 85-year-old group.

“These preliminary data are very encouraging as Delta continues to spread,” Mikael Dolsten, MD, chief scientific officer and president of the Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical organization at Pfizer, said during prepared remarks on a company earnings call July 28, CNN reported.

Availability of a third dose of any of the current COVID-19 vaccines would require amendment of the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization, or full FDA approval for the vaccine.

The possibility of a third dose authorization or approval has not been without controversy. For example, when Pfizer announced intentions to file for FDA authorization of a booster dose on July 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health were quick to issue a joint statement saying they would decide when the timing is right for Americans to have a third immunization. The agencies stated, in part, “We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.”

In addition, the World Health Organization said at a media briefing on July 12 that rich countries should prioritize sharing of COVID-19 vaccine supplies to other countries in need worldwide before allocating doses for a booster shot for its own residents.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

Drinking six or more cups of coffee per day is associated with smaller brain volume and a 53% increased risk for dementia compared with light coffee consumption (1-2 cups per day), according to the results of a large study.

amenic181/Getty Images

“With coffee intake, moderation is the key, and especially high levels of consumption may have adverse long-term effects on the brain,” said study investigator Elina Hypponen, PhD, professor of nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Center for Precision Health at the University of South Australia.

“These new data are concerning, and there is a need to conduct further carefully controlled studies to clarify the effects of coffee on the brain.”

The study was published online June 24 in Nutritional Neuroscience.
 

Potent stimulant

Coffee is a potent nervous system stimulant and is among the most popular nonalcoholic beverages. Some previous research suggests it benefits the brain, but the investigators noted that other research shows a negative or U-shaped relationship.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the U.K. Biobank, a long-term prospective epidemiologic study of more than 500,000 participants aged 37-73 years who were recruited in 22 assessment centers in the United Kingdom between March 2006 and October 2010.

During the baseline assessment, information was gathered using touchscreen questionnaires, verbal interviews, and physical examinations that involved collection of blood, urine, and saliva samples. An imaging substudy was incorporated in 2014, the goal of which was to conduct brain, heart, and body MRI imaging for 100,000 participants.

The investigators conducted analyses on disease outcomes for 398,646 participants for whom information on habitual coffee consumption was available. Brain volume analyses were conducted in 17,702 participants for whom valid brain imaging data were available.

Participants reported coffee intake in cups per day. Researchers grouped coffee consumption into seven categories: nondrinkers, decaffeinated coffee drinkers, and caffeinated coffee drinkers who consumed less than 1 cup/d, 1-2 cups/d, 3-4 cups/d, 5-6 cups/d, and more than 6 cups/d.

The reference category was those who consumed 1-2 cups/d, rather than those who abstained from coffee, because persons who abstain are more likely to be at suboptimal health.

“Comparing the health of coffee drinkers to the health of those choosing to abstain from coffee will typically lead to an impression of a health benefit, even if there would not be one,” said Dr. Hypponen.

The researchers obtained total and regional brain volumes from the MRI imaging substudy starting 4-6 years after baseline assessment. They accessed information on incident dementia and stroke using primary care data, hospital admission electronic health records, national death registers, and self-reported medical conditions.

Covariates included socioeconomic, health, and other factors, such as smoking, alcohol and tea consumption, physical activity, stressful life events, and body mass index.

The investigators found that there was a linear inverse association between coffee consumption and total brain volume (fully adjusted beta per cup, –1.42; 95% confidence interval, –1.89 to –0.94), with consistent patterns for gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes.

There was no evidence to support an association with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (beta –0.01; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.05).
 

Higher consumption, higher risk

The analysis also revealed a nonlinear association between coffee consumption and the odds of dementia (P nonlinearity = .0001), with slightly higher odds seen with non–coffee drinkers and decaffeinated-coffee drinkers and more notable increases for participants in the highest categories of coffee consumption compared with light coffee drinkers.

After adjustment for all covariates, the odds ratio of dementia among persons in the category of coffee intake was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.28-1.83). After full adjustments, the association with heavy coffee consumption and stroke was not significant, although “we can’t exclude a weak effect,” said Dr. Hypponen.

“For the highest coffee consumption group, the data support an association which may be anywhere from 0% to 37% higher odds of stroke after full adjustment,” she added.

People at risk for hypertension may develop “unpleasant sensations” and stop drinking coffee before a serious adverse event occurs, said Dr. Hypponen. In a previous study, she and her colleagues showed that those who have genetically higher blood pressure tend to drink less coffee than their counterparts without the condition.

“This type of effect might be expected to naturally limit the adverse effects of coffee on the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Hypponen.

The odds remained elevated for participants drinking more than 6 cups/d after the researchers accounted for sleep quality. There were no differences in risk between men and women or by age.

An examination of the consumption of tea, which often contains caffeine, did not show an association with brain volume or the odds of dementia or stroke.

“We don’t know whether the difference between associations seen for coffee and tea intake reflects the difference in related caffeine intake or some other explanation, such as dehydration or effects operating through blood cholesterol,” said Dr. Hypponen.

Although reverse causation is possible, there’s no reason to believe that it is relevant to the study results. Genetic evidence suggests a causal role of higher coffee intake on risk for Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, results of a clinical trial support the association between higher caffeine intake and smaller gray matter volume, said Dr. Hypponen.

The mechanisms linking coffee consumption to brain volumes and dementia are not well established. However, Dr. Hypponen noted that caffeine has been used to induce apoptosis in cancer studies using glial cells.

“Furthermore, adenosine receptors, which mediate many of the effects of caffeine in the brain, have been suggested to influence the release of growth factors, which in turn can have an influence on astrocyte proliferation and angiogenesis in the brain,” she said.

Some types of coffee contain cafestol, which increases blood cholesterol and can have adverse effects though related mechanisms, said Dr. Hypponen.

The mechanism may also involve dehydration, which may have a harmful effect on the brain. The study suggested a correlation between dehydration and high coffee intake. “Of course, if this is the case, it is good news, as then we can do something about it simply by drinking some water every time we have a cup of coffee,” she said.
 

Misleading conclusions

Coffee contains antioxidants, and although previous studies have suggested it might be beneficial, this hypothesis is “too simplistic,” said Dr. Hypponen. “While coffee is not going to be all ‘bad’ either, there are a lot of controversies and suggestions about beneficial effects of coffee which may not be true, or at least do not reflect the full story.”

If the drinking of coffee is at least partly determined by an individual’s health status, then that would often lead to misleading conclusions in observational studies, said Dr. Hypponen.

“When one uses as a comparison people who already have poor health and who do not drink coffee because of that, coffee intake will by default appear beneficial simply because there are more people with disease among those choosing abstinence,” she said.

Before now, there was “very little evidence about the association between coffee intake and brain morphology,” and the studies that were conducted were relatively small, said Dr. Hypponen.

One of these smaller studies included a group of women aged 13-30 years. It found that coffee consumption was not associated with total brain volumes, but the findings suggested a U-shaped association with hippocampal volume; higher values were seen both for nondrinkers and the groups with higher consumption.

A small study of elderly patients with diabetes showed no evidence of an association with white matter volume, but there was a possible age-dependent association with gray matter volume.

The largest of the earlier studies had results that were very similar to those of the current study, suggesting that increasing coffee intake is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes, said Dr. Hypponen.

One of the study’s limitations included the fact that full dietary information was available only for a subsample and that factors such as dehydration were measured at baseline rather than at the time of brain MRI.

Another possible study limitation was the use of self-reported data and the fact that lifestyle changes may have occurred between baseline and MRI or covariate measurement.

In addition, the study is subject to a healthy-volunteer bias, and its implications are restricted to White British persons. The association needs to be studied in other ethnic populations, the authors noted.
 

A reason to cut back?

Commenting on the findings, Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study is large and quite well done.

“It does raise questions about an increase in risk of dementia with six or more cups of coffee per day,” said Dr. Willett. “At the same time, it provides reassurance about lack of adverse effects of coffee for those consuming three or four cups per day, and little increase in risk, if any, with five cups per day.”

It’s not entirely clear whether the increase in risk with six or more cups of coffee per day represents a “true effect” of coffee, inasmuch as the study did not seem to adjust fully for dietary factors, high consumption of alcohol, or past smoking, said Dr. Willett.

The findings don’t suggest that coffee lovers should give up their Java. “But six or more cups per day is a lot, and those who drink that much might consider cutting back a bit while research continues,” said Dr. Willett.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

Drinking six or more cups of coffee per day is associated with smaller brain volume and a 53% increased risk for dementia compared with light coffee consumption (1-2 cups per day), according to the results of a large study.

amenic181/Getty Images

“With coffee intake, moderation is the key, and especially high levels of consumption may have adverse long-term effects on the brain,” said study investigator Elina Hypponen, PhD, professor of nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Center for Precision Health at the University of South Australia.

“These new data are concerning, and there is a need to conduct further carefully controlled studies to clarify the effects of coffee on the brain.”

The study was published online June 24 in Nutritional Neuroscience.
 

Potent stimulant

Coffee is a potent nervous system stimulant and is among the most popular nonalcoholic beverages. Some previous research suggests it benefits the brain, but the investigators noted that other research shows a negative or U-shaped relationship.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the U.K. Biobank, a long-term prospective epidemiologic study of more than 500,000 participants aged 37-73 years who were recruited in 22 assessment centers in the United Kingdom between March 2006 and October 2010.

During the baseline assessment, information was gathered using touchscreen questionnaires, verbal interviews, and physical examinations that involved collection of blood, urine, and saliva samples. An imaging substudy was incorporated in 2014, the goal of which was to conduct brain, heart, and body MRI imaging for 100,000 participants.

The investigators conducted analyses on disease outcomes for 398,646 participants for whom information on habitual coffee consumption was available. Brain volume analyses were conducted in 17,702 participants for whom valid brain imaging data were available.

Participants reported coffee intake in cups per day. Researchers grouped coffee consumption into seven categories: nondrinkers, decaffeinated coffee drinkers, and caffeinated coffee drinkers who consumed less than 1 cup/d, 1-2 cups/d, 3-4 cups/d, 5-6 cups/d, and more than 6 cups/d.

The reference category was those who consumed 1-2 cups/d, rather than those who abstained from coffee, because persons who abstain are more likely to be at suboptimal health.

“Comparing the health of coffee drinkers to the health of those choosing to abstain from coffee will typically lead to an impression of a health benefit, even if there would not be one,” said Dr. Hypponen.

The researchers obtained total and regional brain volumes from the MRI imaging substudy starting 4-6 years after baseline assessment. They accessed information on incident dementia and stroke using primary care data, hospital admission electronic health records, national death registers, and self-reported medical conditions.

Covariates included socioeconomic, health, and other factors, such as smoking, alcohol and tea consumption, physical activity, stressful life events, and body mass index.

The investigators found that there was a linear inverse association between coffee consumption and total brain volume (fully adjusted beta per cup, –1.42; 95% confidence interval, –1.89 to –0.94), with consistent patterns for gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes.

There was no evidence to support an association with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (beta –0.01; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.05).
 

Higher consumption, higher risk

The analysis also revealed a nonlinear association between coffee consumption and the odds of dementia (P nonlinearity = .0001), with slightly higher odds seen with non–coffee drinkers and decaffeinated-coffee drinkers and more notable increases for participants in the highest categories of coffee consumption compared with light coffee drinkers.

After adjustment for all covariates, the odds ratio of dementia among persons in the category of coffee intake was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.28-1.83). After full adjustments, the association with heavy coffee consumption and stroke was not significant, although “we can’t exclude a weak effect,” said Dr. Hypponen.

“For the highest coffee consumption group, the data support an association which may be anywhere from 0% to 37% higher odds of stroke after full adjustment,” she added.

People at risk for hypertension may develop “unpleasant sensations” and stop drinking coffee before a serious adverse event occurs, said Dr. Hypponen. In a previous study, she and her colleagues showed that those who have genetically higher blood pressure tend to drink less coffee than their counterparts without the condition.

“This type of effect might be expected to naturally limit the adverse effects of coffee on the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Hypponen.

The odds remained elevated for participants drinking more than 6 cups/d after the researchers accounted for sleep quality. There were no differences in risk between men and women or by age.

An examination of the consumption of tea, which often contains caffeine, did not show an association with brain volume or the odds of dementia or stroke.

“We don’t know whether the difference between associations seen for coffee and tea intake reflects the difference in related caffeine intake or some other explanation, such as dehydration or effects operating through blood cholesterol,” said Dr. Hypponen.

Although reverse causation is possible, there’s no reason to believe that it is relevant to the study results. Genetic evidence suggests a causal role of higher coffee intake on risk for Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, results of a clinical trial support the association between higher caffeine intake and smaller gray matter volume, said Dr. Hypponen.

The mechanisms linking coffee consumption to brain volumes and dementia are not well established. However, Dr. Hypponen noted that caffeine has been used to induce apoptosis in cancer studies using glial cells.

“Furthermore, adenosine receptors, which mediate many of the effects of caffeine in the brain, have been suggested to influence the release of growth factors, which in turn can have an influence on astrocyte proliferation and angiogenesis in the brain,” she said.

Some types of coffee contain cafestol, which increases blood cholesterol and can have adverse effects though related mechanisms, said Dr. Hypponen.

The mechanism may also involve dehydration, which may have a harmful effect on the brain. The study suggested a correlation between dehydration and high coffee intake. “Of course, if this is the case, it is good news, as then we can do something about it simply by drinking some water every time we have a cup of coffee,” she said.
 

Misleading conclusions

Coffee contains antioxidants, and although previous studies have suggested it might be beneficial, this hypothesis is “too simplistic,” said Dr. Hypponen. “While coffee is not going to be all ‘bad’ either, there are a lot of controversies and suggestions about beneficial effects of coffee which may not be true, or at least do not reflect the full story.”

If the drinking of coffee is at least partly determined by an individual’s health status, then that would often lead to misleading conclusions in observational studies, said Dr. Hypponen.

“When one uses as a comparison people who already have poor health and who do not drink coffee because of that, coffee intake will by default appear beneficial simply because there are more people with disease among those choosing abstinence,” she said.

Before now, there was “very little evidence about the association between coffee intake and brain morphology,” and the studies that were conducted were relatively small, said Dr. Hypponen.

One of these smaller studies included a group of women aged 13-30 years. It found that coffee consumption was not associated with total brain volumes, but the findings suggested a U-shaped association with hippocampal volume; higher values were seen both for nondrinkers and the groups with higher consumption.

A small study of elderly patients with diabetes showed no evidence of an association with white matter volume, but there was a possible age-dependent association with gray matter volume.

The largest of the earlier studies had results that were very similar to those of the current study, suggesting that increasing coffee intake is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes, said Dr. Hypponen.

One of the study’s limitations included the fact that full dietary information was available only for a subsample and that factors such as dehydration were measured at baseline rather than at the time of brain MRI.

Another possible study limitation was the use of self-reported data and the fact that lifestyle changes may have occurred between baseline and MRI or covariate measurement.

In addition, the study is subject to a healthy-volunteer bias, and its implications are restricted to White British persons. The association needs to be studied in other ethnic populations, the authors noted.
 

A reason to cut back?

Commenting on the findings, Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study is large and quite well done.

“It does raise questions about an increase in risk of dementia with six or more cups of coffee per day,” said Dr. Willett. “At the same time, it provides reassurance about lack of adverse effects of coffee for those consuming three or four cups per day, and little increase in risk, if any, with five cups per day.”

It’s not entirely clear whether the increase in risk with six or more cups of coffee per day represents a “true effect” of coffee, inasmuch as the study did not seem to adjust fully for dietary factors, high consumption of alcohol, or past smoking, said Dr. Willett.

The findings don’t suggest that coffee lovers should give up their Java. “But six or more cups per day is a lot, and those who drink that much might consider cutting back a bit while research continues,” said Dr. Willett.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

Drinking six or more cups of coffee per day is associated with smaller brain volume and a 53% increased risk for dementia compared with light coffee consumption (1-2 cups per day), according to the results of a large study.

amenic181/Getty Images

“With coffee intake, moderation is the key, and especially high levels of consumption may have adverse long-term effects on the brain,” said study investigator Elina Hypponen, PhD, professor of nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Center for Precision Health at the University of South Australia.

“These new data are concerning, and there is a need to conduct further carefully controlled studies to clarify the effects of coffee on the brain.”

The study was published online June 24 in Nutritional Neuroscience.
 

Potent stimulant

Coffee is a potent nervous system stimulant and is among the most popular nonalcoholic beverages. Some previous research suggests it benefits the brain, but the investigators noted that other research shows a negative or U-shaped relationship.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the U.K. Biobank, a long-term prospective epidemiologic study of more than 500,000 participants aged 37-73 years who were recruited in 22 assessment centers in the United Kingdom between March 2006 and October 2010.

During the baseline assessment, information was gathered using touchscreen questionnaires, verbal interviews, and physical examinations that involved collection of blood, urine, and saliva samples. An imaging substudy was incorporated in 2014, the goal of which was to conduct brain, heart, and body MRI imaging for 100,000 participants.

The investigators conducted analyses on disease outcomes for 398,646 participants for whom information on habitual coffee consumption was available. Brain volume analyses were conducted in 17,702 participants for whom valid brain imaging data were available.

Participants reported coffee intake in cups per day. Researchers grouped coffee consumption into seven categories: nondrinkers, decaffeinated coffee drinkers, and caffeinated coffee drinkers who consumed less than 1 cup/d, 1-2 cups/d, 3-4 cups/d, 5-6 cups/d, and more than 6 cups/d.

The reference category was those who consumed 1-2 cups/d, rather than those who abstained from coffee, because persons who abstain are more likely to be at suboptimal health.

“Comparing the health of coffee drinkers to the health of those choosing to abstain from coffee will typically lead to an impression of a health benefit, even if there would not be one,” said Dr. Hypponen.

The researchers obtained total and regional brain volumes from the MRI imaging substudy starting 4-6 years after baseline assessment. They accessed information on incident dementia and stroke using primary care data, hospital admission electronic health records, national death registers, and self-reported medical conditions.

Covariates included socioeconomic, health, and other factors, such as smoking, alcohol and tea consumption, physical activity, stressful life events, and body mass index.

The investigators found that there was a linear inverse association between coffee consumption and total brain volume (fully adjusted beta per cup, –1.42; 95% confidence interval, –1.89 to –0.94), with consistent patterns for gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes.

There was no evidence to support an association with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume (beta –0.01; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.05).
 

Higher consumption, higher risk

The analysis also revealed a nonlinear association between coffee consumption and the odds of dementia (P nonlinearity = .0001), with slightly higher odds seen with non–coffee drinkers and decaffeinated-coffee drinkers and more notable increases for participants in the highest categories of coffee consumption compared with light coffee drinkers.

After adjustment for all covariates, the odds ratio of dementia among persons in the category of coffee intake was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.28-1.83). After full adjustments, the association with heavy coffee consumption and stroke was not significant, although “we can’t exclude a weak effect,” said Dr. Hypponen.

“For the highest coffee consumption group, the data support an association which may be anywhere from 0% to 37% higher odds of stroke after full adjustment,” she added.

People at risk for hypertension may develop “unpleasant sensations” and stop drinking coffee before a serious adverse event occurs, said Dr. Hypponen. In a previous study, she and her colleagues showed that those who have genetically higher blood pressure tend to drink less coffee than their counterparts without the condition.

“This type of effect might be expected to naturally limit the adverse effects of coffee on the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Hypponen.

The odds remained elevated for participants drinking more than 6 cups/d after the researchers accounted for sleep quality. There were no differences in risk between men and women or by age.

An examination of the consumption of tea, which often contains caffeine, did not show an association with brain volume or the odds of dementia or stroke.

“We don’t know whether the difference between associations seen for coffee and tea intake reflects the difference in related caffeine intake or some other explanation, such as dehydration or effects operating through blood cholesterol,” said Dr. Hypponen.

Although reverse causation is possible, there’s no reason to believe that it is relevant to the study results. Genetic evidence suggests a causal role of higher coffee intake on risk for Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, results of a clinical trial support the association between higher caffeine intake and smaller gray matter volume, said Dr. Hypponen.

The mechanisms linking coffee consumption to brain volumes and dementia are not well established. However, Dr. Hypponen noted that caffeine has been used to induce apoptosis in cancer studies using glial cells.

“Furthermore, adenosine receptors, which mediate many of the effects of caffeine in the brain, have been suggested to influence the release of growth factors, which in turn can have an influence on astrocyte proliferation and angiogenesis in the brain,” she said.

Some types of coffee contain cafestol, which increases blood cholesterol and can have adverse effects though related mechanisms, said Dr. Hypponen.

The mechanism may also involve dehydration, which may have a harmful effect on the brain. The study suggested a correlation between dehydration and high coffee intake. “Of course, if this is the case, it is good news, as then we can do something about it simply by drinking some water every time we have a cup of coffee,” she said.
 

Misleading conclusions

Coffee contains antioxidants, and although previous studies have suggested it might be beneficial, this hypothesis is “too simplistic,” said Dr. Hypponen. “While coffee is not going to be all ‘bad’ either, there are a lot of controversies and suggestions about beneficial effects of coffee which may not be true, or at least do not reflect the full story.”

If the drinking of coffee is at least partly determined by an individual’s health status, then that would often lead to misleading conclusions in observational studies, said Dr. Hypponen.

“When one uses as a comparison people who already have poor health and who do not drink coffee because of that, coffee intake will by default appear beneficial simply because there are more people with disease among those choosing abstinence,” she said.

Before now, there was “very little evidence about the association between coffee intake and brain morphology,” and the studies that were conducted were relatively small, said Dr. Hypponen.

One of these smaller studies included a group of women aged 13-30 years. It found that coffee consumption was not associated with total brain volumes, but the findings suggested a U-shaped association with hippocampal volume; higher values were seen both for nondrinkers and the groups with higher consumption.

A small study of elderly patients with diabetes showed no evidence of an association with white matter volume, but there was a possible age-dependent association with gray matter volume.

The largest of the earlier studies had results that were very similar to those of the current study, suggesting that increasing coffee intake is associated with smaller hippocampal volumes, said Dr. Hypponen.

One of the study’s limitations included the fact that full dietary information was available only for a subsample and that factors such as dehydration were measured at baseline rather than at the time of brain MRI.

Another possible study limitation was the use of self-reported data and the fact that lifestyle changes may have occurred between baseline and MRI or covariate measurement.

In addition, the study is subject to a healthy-volunteer bias, and its implications are restricted to White British persons. The association needs to be studied in other ethnic populations, the authors noted.
 

A reason to cut back?

Commenting on the findings, Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the study is large and quite well done.

“It does raise questions about an increase in risk of dementia with six or more cups of coffee per day,” said Dr. Willett. “At the same time, it provides reassurance about lack of adverse effects of coffee for those consuming three or four cups per day, and little increase in risk, if any, with five cups per day.”

It’s not entirely clear whether the increase in risk with six or more cups of coffee per day represents a “true effect” of coffee, inasmuch as the study did not seem to adjust fully for dietary factors, high consumption of alcohol, or past smoking, said Dr. Willett.

The findings don’t suggest that coffee lovers should give up their Java. “But six or more cups per day is a lot, and those who drink that much might consider cutting back a bit while research continues,” said Dr. Willett.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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