Mixed Topics

Infertility, pregnancy loss, and stillbirth increased women’s later risk of both nonfatal and fatal stroke, based on data from more than 600,000 women.

“To date, multiple studies have generated an expanding body of evidence on the association between pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational diabetes and preeclampsia) and the long-term risk of stroke, but studies on associations with infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth have produced mixed evidence,” Chen Liang, a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from eight observational cohort studies across seven countries (Australia, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The participants were part of the InterLACE (International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events) consortium established in 2021. Most observational studies included in the analysis began between 1990 and 2000.

The study population included 618,851 women aged 32-73 years at baseline for whom data on infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth, were available. The primary outcome was the association of infertility, recurrent miscarriage, and stillbirth with risk of first fatal or nonfatal stroke, and the results were further stratified by subtype. Stroke was identified through self-reports, linked hospital data, national patient registers, or death registry data. Baseline was defined as the first incidence of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth. The exception was the National Survey of Health and Development, a British birth cohort started in 1946, that collected data retrospectively.

The median follow-up period was 13 years for nonfatal stroke and 9.4 years for fatal stroke.

Overall, 17.2%, 16.6%, and 4.6% of the women experienced infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, respectively.

Women with a history of infertility had a significantly higher nonfatal stroke risk, compared with those without infertility (hazard ratio, 1.14). Further analysis by stroke subtypes showed an increased association between miscarriage and ischemic stroke (HR, 1.15).

Those with a history of miscarriage also had an increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those without miscarriages (HR, 1.11). In the miscarriage group, the risk of stroke increased with the number of miscarriages, with adjusted HRs of 1.07, 1.12, and 1.35 for women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages, respectively. When stratified by stroke subtype, women with three or more miscarriages were more likely than women with no miscarriages to experience ischemic and hemorrhagic nonfatal strokes.

Associations were similar between miscarriage history and fatal stroke risk. Women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages had increased risk of fatal stroke, compared with those with no miscarriages (aHR, 1.08, 1.26, and 1.82, respectively, and women with three or more miscarriages had a higher risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR, 1.83 and 1.84, respectively).

Women with a history of stillbirth had an approximately 31% increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those with no history of stillbirth, with aHRs similar for single and recurrent stillbirths (1.32 and 1.29, respectively). Ischemic nonfatal stroke risk was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without stillbirth (aHR, 1.77). Fatal stroke risk also was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without, and this risk increased with the number of stillbirths (HR, 0.97 and HR, 1.26 for those with one stillbirth and two or more, respectively).

“The increased risk of stroke associated with infertility or recurrent stillbirths was mainly driven by a single subtype of stroke (nonfatal ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhagic stroke, respectively), whereas the risk of stroke associated with recurrent miscarriages was driven by both subtypes,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers cited endothelial dysfunction as a potential underlying mechanism for increased stroke risk associated with pregnancy complications. “Endothelial dysfunction might lead to pregnancy loss through placentation-related defects, persist after a complicated pregnancy, and contribute to the development of stroke through reduced vasodilation, proinflammatory status, and prothrombic properties,” and that history of recurrent pregnancy loss might be a female-specific risk factor for stroke.

To mitigate this risk, they advised early monitoring of women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and stillbirths for stroke risk factors such as high blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of questionnaires to collect information on infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and the potential variation in definitions of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth across the included studies, and a lack of data on the effect of different causes or treatments based on reproductive histories, the researchers noted. Other limitations include incomplete data on stroke subtypes and inability to adjust for all covariates such as thyroid disorders and endometriosis. However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and geographically and racially diverse population, extend the current knowledge on associations between infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth with stroke, and highlight the need for more research on underlying mechanisms.
 

Data support gender-specific stroke risk stratification

“Studies that seek to understand gender differences and disparities in adverse outcomes, such as stroke risk, are extremely important given that women historically were excluded from research studies,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “By doing these studies, we are able to better risk stratify people in order to better predict and modify risks,” added Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study.

“It is well known than adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertension in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth, lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke later in life, so the general findings of an association between other adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes leads to increased stroke risk are not surprising,” she said.

“The take-home message is that outcomes for pregnancy really do provide a window to future health,” said Dr. Albright. “For clinicians, especially non-ob.gyns., knowing a complete pregnancy history for any new patient is important and can help risk-stratify patients, especially as we continue to gain knowledge like what is shown in this study.”

However, “this study did not evaluate why individual patients may have had infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or stillbirth, so research to look further into this association to determine if there is an underlying medical condition that could be treated and therefore possibly reduce both pregnancy complications and future stroke risks would be important,” Dr. Albright noted.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence; one corresponding author was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Infertility, pregnancy loss, and stillbirth increased women’s later risk of both nonfatal and fatal stroke, based on data from more than 600,000 women.

“To date, multiple studies have generated an expanding body of evidence on the association between pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational diabetes and preeclampsia) and the long-term risk of stroke, but studies on associations with infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth have produced mixed evidence,” Chen Liang, a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from eight observational cohort studies across seven countries (Australia, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The participants were part of the InterLACE (International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events) consortium established in 2021. Most observational studies included in the analysis began between 1990 and 2000.

The study population included 618,851 women aged 32-73 years at baseline for whom data on infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth, were available. The primary outcome was the association of infertility, recurrent miscarriage, and stillbirth with risk of first fatal or nonfatal stroke, and the results were further stratified by subtype. Stroke was identified through self-reports, linked hospital data, national patient registers, or death registry data. Baseline was defined as the first incidence of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth. The exception was the National Survey of Health and Development, a British birth cohort started in 1946, that collected data retrospectively.

The median follow-up period was 13 years for nonfatal stroke and 9.4 years for fatal stroke.

Overall, 17.2%, 16.6%, and 4.6% of the women experienced infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, respectively.

Women with a history of infertility had a significantly higher nonfatal stroke risk, compared with those without infertility (hazard ratio, 1.14). Further analysis by stroke subtypes showed an increased association between miscarriage and ischemic stroke (HR, 1.15).

Those with a history of miscarriage also had an increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those without miscarriages (HR, 1.11). In the miscarriage group, the risk of stroke increased with the number of miscarriages, with adjusted HRs of 1.07, 1.12, and 1.35 for women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages, respectively. When stratified by stroke subtype, women with three or more miscarriages were more likely than women with no miscarriages to experience ischemic and hemorrhagic nonfatal strokes.

Associations were similar between miscarriage history and fatal stroke risk. Women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages had increased risk of fatal stroke, compared with those with no miscarriages (aHR, 1.08, 1.26, and 1.82, respectively, and women with three or more miscarriages had a higher risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR, 1.83 and 1.84, respectively).

Women with a history of stillbirth had an approximately 31% increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those with no history of stillbirth, with aHRs similar for single and recurrent stillbirths (1.32 and 1.29, respectively). Ischemic nonfatal stroke risk was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without stillbirth (aHR, 1.77). Fatal stroke risk also was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without, and this risk increased with the number of stillbirths (HR, 0.97 and HR, 1.26 for those with one stillbirth and two or more, respectively).

“The increased risk of stroke associated with infertility or recurrent stillbirths was mainly driven by a single subtype of stroke (nonfatal ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhagic stroke, respectively), whereas the risk of stroke associated with recurrent miscarriages was driven by both subtypes,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers cited endothelial dysfunction as a potential underlying mechanism for increased stroke risk associated with pregnancy complications. “Endothelial dysfunction might lead to pregnancy loss through placentation-related defects, persist after a complicated pregnancy, and contribute to the development of stroke through reduced vasodilation, proinflammatory status, and prothrombic properties,” and that history of recurrent pregnancy loss might be a female-specific risk factor for stroke.

To mitigate this risk, they advised early monitoring of women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and stillbirths for stroke risk factors such as high blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of questionnaires to collect information on infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and the potential variation in definitions of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth across the included studies, and a lack of data on the effect of different causes or treatments based on reproductive histories, the researchers noted. Other limitations include incomplete data on stroke subtypes and inability to adjust for all covariates such as thyroid disorders and endometriosis. However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and geographically and racially diverse population, extend the current knowledge on associations between infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth with stroke, and highlight the need for more research on underlying mechanisms.
 

Data support gender-specific stroke risk stratification

“Studies that seek to understand gender differences and disparities in adverse outcomes, such as stroke risk, are extremely important given that women historically were excluded from research studies,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “By doing these studies, we are able to better risk stratify people in order to better predict and modify risks,” added Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study.

“It is well known than adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertension in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth, lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke later in life, so the general findings of an association between other adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes leads to increased stroke risk are not surprising,” she said.

“The take-home message is that outcomes for pregnancy really do provide a window to future health,” said Dr. Albright. “For clinicians, especially non-ob.gyns., knowing a complete pregnancy history for any new patient is important and can help risk-stratify patients, especially as we continue to gain knowledge like what is shown in this study.”

However, “this study did not evaluate why individual patients may have had infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or stillbirth, so research to look further into this association to determine if there is an underlying medical condition that could be treated and therefore possibly reduce both pregnancy complications and future stroke risks would be important,” Dr. Albright noted.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence; one corresponding author was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Infertility, pregnancy loss, and stillbirth increased women’s later risk of both nonfatal and fatal stroke, based on data from more than 600,000 women.

“To date, multiple studies have generated an expanding body of evidence on the association between pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational diabetes and preeclampsia) and the long-term risk of stroke, but studies on associations with infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth have produced mixed evidence,” Chen Liang, a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from eight observational cohort studies across seven countries (Australia, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The participants were part of the InterLACE (International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events) consortium established in 2021. Most observational studies included in the analysis began between 1990 and 2000.

The study population included 618,851 women aged 32-73 years at baseline for whom data on infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth, were available. The primary outcome was the association of infertility, recurrent miscarriage, and stillbirth with risk of first fatal or nonfatal stroke, and the results were further stratified by subtype. Stroke was identified through self-reports, linked hospital data, national patient registers, or death registry data. Baseline was defined as the first incidence of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth. The exception was the National Survey of Health and Development, a British birth cohort started in 1946, that collected data retrospectively.

The median follow-up period was 13 years for nonfatal stroke and 9.4 years for fatal stroke.

Overall, 17.2%, 16.6%, and 4.6% of the women experienced infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, respectively.

Women with a history of infertility had a significantly higher nonfatal stroke risk, compared with those without infertility (hazard ratio, 1.14). Further analysis by stroke subtypes showed an increased association between miscarriage and ischemic stroke (HR, 1.15).

Those with a history of miscarriage also had an increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those without miscarriages (HR, 1.11). In the miscarriage group, the risk of stroke increased with the number of miscarriages, with adjusted HRs of 1.07, 1.12, and 1.35 for women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages, respectively. When stratified by stroke subtype, women with three or more miscarriages were more likely than women with no miscarriages to experience ischemic and hemorrhagic nonfatal strokes.

Associations were similar between miscarriage history and fatal stroke risk. Women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages had increased risk of fatal stroke, compared with those with no miscarriages (aHR, 1.08, 1.26, and 1.82, respectively, and women with three or more miscarriages had a higher risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR, 1.83 and 1.84, respectively).

Women with a history of stillbirth had an approximately 31% increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those with no history of stillbirth, with aHRs similar for single and recurrent stillbirths (1.32 and 1.29, respectively). Ischemic nonfatal stroke risk was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without stillbirth (aHR, 1.77). Fatal stroke risk also was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without, and this risk increased with the number of stillbirths (HR, 0.97 and HR, 1.26 for those with one stillbirth and two or more, respectively).

“The increased risk of stroke associated with infertility or recurrent stillbirths was mainly driven by a single subtype of stroke (nonfatal ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhagic stroke, respectively), whereas the risk of stroke associated with recurrent miscarriages was driven by both subtypes,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers cited endothelial dysfunction as a potential underlying mechanism for increased stroke risk associated with pregnancy complications. “Endothelial dysfunction might lead to pregnancy loss through placentation-related defects, persist after a complicated pregnancy, and contribute to the development of stroke through reduced vasodilation, proinflammatory status, and prothrombic properties,” and that history of recurrent pregnancy loss might be a female-specific risk factor for stroke.

To mitigate this risk, they advised early monitoring of women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and stillbirths for stroke risk factors such as high blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of questionnaires to collect information on infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and the potential variation in definitions of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth across the included studies, and a lack of data on the effect of different causes or treatments based on reproductive histories, the researchers noted. Other limitations include incomplete data on stroke subtypes and inability to adjust for all covariates such as thyroid disorders and endometriosis. However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and geographically and racially diverse population, extend the current knowledge on associations between infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth with stroke, and highlight the need for more research on underlying mechanisms.
 

Data support gender-specific stroke risk stratification

“Studies that seek to understand gender differences and disparities in adverse outcomes, such as stroke risk, are extremely important given that women historically were excluded from research studies,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “By doing these studies, we are able to better risk stratify people in order to better predict and modify risks,” added Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study.

“It is well known than adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertension in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth, lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke later in life, so the general findings of an association between other adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes leads to increased stroke risk are not surprising,” she said.

“The take-home message is that outcomes for pregnancy really do provide a window to future health,” said Dr. Albright. “For clinicians, especially non-ob.gyns., knowing a complete pregnancy history for any new patient is important and can help risk-stratify patients, especially as we continue to gain knowledge like what is shown in this study.”

However, “this study did not evaluate why individual patients may have had infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or stillbirth, so research to look further into this association to determine if there is an underlying medical condition that could be treated and therefore possibly reduce both pregnancy complications and future stroke risks would be important,” Dr. Albright noted.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence; one corresponding author was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

It’s rare for a child to die after a tonsillectomy, but children who die are more likely to have a complex chronic condition such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, according to a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA.

“Among children undergoing tonsillectomy, the rate of postoperative death was 7 per 100,000 operations overall, [but] among children with complex chronic conditions, the rate of postoperative death was 117 per 100,000 operations, representing 44% of overall deaths,” write researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “These findings may inform decisionmaking for pediatric tonsillectomy.”

The rate of death in children after tonsillectomy has been uncertain, the authors write. Specific mortality rates for children at increased risk for complications, including those under 3 years old and those with sleep-disordered breathing or complex chronic conditions, have not been available.

To learn how likely children undergoing tonsillectomy are to die after their surgery, as well as which children are most at risk, lead study author M. Bruce Edmonson, MD, MPH, department of pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and his colleagues drew data from five states, including ambulatory surgery, inpatient, and emergency department discharge data sets provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for California, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

Participants included 504,262 patients under 21 years of age whose discharge records linked their inpatient or outpatient tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, with at least 90 days of follow-up.

In a longitudinal analysis, the research team investigated postoperative death within 30 days or during a surgical stay lasting over 30 days. They calculated postoperative mortality per 100,000 operations, both overall and classified by age group, sleep-disordered breathing, and complex chronic conditions.

The 504,262 children ranged in age from 0 to 20 years and underwent a total of 505,182 tonsillectomies. Of these, 10.1% were performed in children aged under 3 years, 28.9% in children with sleep-disordered breathing, and 2.8% in those with complex chronic conditions.

The 36 linked postoperative deaths occurred between 2 and 20.5 days after surgical admission, and 19 (53%) of the deaths occurred after surgical discharge.

The unadjusted mortality rate was 7.04 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-9.98) deaths per 100,000 procedures. In multivariable models, children younger than 3 years and children with sleep-disordered breathing were not significantly more likely to die.

But children with complex chronic conditions were significantly more likely to die than were children without those conditions (117.22 vs. 3.87 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively).

Children with complex chronic conditions underwent only 2.8% of all tonsillectomies, but they accounted for 44% of postoperative deaths. Most deaths linked with complex chronic conditions occurred among children with neurologic, neuromuscular, congenital, or genetic disorders.
 

Findings can help providers advise patients and their families about tonsillectomy risks

Kavita Dedhia, MD, MSHP, attending otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that she was not surprised by the findings.

“This study suggests that mortality is an extremely rare complication of tonsillectomy, and that children with complex medical conditions are at highest risk,” Dr. Dedhia, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“Due to their underlying comorbidities, medically fragile children are considered to be at higher risk while undergoing anesthesia and surgical procedures,” she added.

Dr. Dedhia noted that nonpatient factors the study did not explore may have affected the mortality rates, including each hospital’s experience with managing children with complex medical conditions, as well as whether the hospitals were tertiary care facilities, and pediatric or adult hospitals.

She would like to know what hospital or practice characteristics may have contributed to the mortality risk and whether increased mortality in these patients is limited to tonsillectomy or is also found with other surgical procedures.

“The strength of this study is that it is large and multi-regional and that it informs providers about patient factors impacting mortality in pediatric tonsillectomy,” Dr. Dedhia said. “This study arms surgeons with data to discuss mortality risk with the families of medically complex children undergoing tonsillectomy.”

The study authors and Dr. Dedhia report no relevant financial relationships. Funding information was not provided.

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

It’s rare for a child to die after a tonsillectomy, but children who die are more likely to have a complex chronic condition such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, according to a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA.

“Among children undergoing tonsillectomy, the rate of postoperative death was 7 per 100,000 operations overall, [but] among children with complex chronic conditions, the rate of postoperative death was 117 per 100,000 operations, representing 44% of overall deaths,” write researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “These findings may inform decisionmaking for pediatric tonsillectomy.”

The rate of death in children after tonsillectomy has been uncertain, the authors write. Specific mortality rates for children at increased risk for complications, including those under 3 years old and those with sleep-disordered breathing or complex chronic conditions, have not been available.

To learn how likely children undergoing tonsillectomy are to die after their surgery, as well as which children are most at risk, lead study author M. Bruce Edmonson, MD, MPH, department of pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and his colleagues drew data from five states, including ambulatory surgery, inpatient, and emergency department discharge data sets provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for California, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

Participants included 504,262 patients under 21 years of age whose discharge records linked their inpatient or outpatient tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, with at least 90 days of follow-up.

In a longitudinal analysis, the research team investigated postoperative death within 30 days or during a surgical stay lasting over 30 days. They calculated postoperative mortality per 100,000 operations, both overall and classified by age group, sleep-disordered breathing, and complex chronic conditions.

The 504,262 children ranged in age from 0 to 20 years and underwent a total of 505,182 tonsillectomies. Of these, 10.1% were performed in children aged under 3 years, 28.9% in children with sleep-disordered breathing, and 2.8% in those with complex chronic conditions.

The 36 linked postoperative deaths occurred between 2 and 20.5 days after surgical admission, and 19 (53%) of the deaths occurred after surgical discharge.

The unadjusted mortality rate was 7.04 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-9.98) deaths per 100,000 procedures. In multivariable models, children younger than 3 years and children with sleep-disordered breathing were not significantly more likely to die.

But children with complex chronic conditions were significantly more likely to die than were children without those conditions (117.22 vs. 3.87 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively).

Children with complex chronic conditions underwent only 2.8% of all tonsillectomies, but they accounted for 44% of postoperative deaths. Most deaths linked with complex chronic conditions occurred among children with neurologic, neuromuscular, congenital, or genetic disorders.
 

Findings can help providers advise patients and their families about tonsillectomy risks

Kavita Dedhia, MD, MSHP, attending otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that she was not surprised by the findings.

“This study suggests that mortality is an extremely rare complication of tonsillectomy, and that children with complex medical conditions are at highest risk,” Dr. Dedhia, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“Due to their underlying comorbidities, medically fragile children are considered to be at higher risk while undergoing anesthesia and surgical procedures,” she added.

Dr. Dedhia noted that nonpatient factors the study did not explore may have affected the mortality rates, including each hospital’s experience with managing children with complex medical conditions, as well as whether the hospitals were tertiary care facilities, and pediatric or adult hospitals.

She would like to know what hospital or practice characteristics may have contributed to the mortality risk and whether increased mortality in these patients is limited to tonsillectomy or is also found with other surgical procedures.

“The strength of this study is that it is large and multi-regional and that it informs providers about patient factors impacting mortality in pediatric tonsillectomy,” Dr. Dedhia said. “This study arms surgeons with data to discuss mortality risk with the families of medically complex children undergoing tonsillectomy.”

The study authors and Dr. Dedhia report no relevant financial relationships. Funding information was not provided.

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

It’s rare for a child to die after a tonsillectomy, but children who die are more likely to have a complex chronic condition such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, according to a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA.

“Among children undergoing tonsillectomy, the rate of postoperative death was 7 per 100,000 operations overall, [but] among children with complex chronic conditions, the rate of postoperative death was 117 per 100,000 operations, representing 44% of overall deaths,” write researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “These findings may inform decisionmaking for pediatric tonsillectomy.”

The rate of death in children after tonsillectomy has been uncertain, the authors write. Specific mortality rates for children at increased risk for complications, including those under 3 years old and those with sleep-disordered breathing or complex chronic conditions, have not been available.

To learn how likely children undergoing tonsillectomy are to die after their surgery, as well as which children are most at risk, lead study author M. Bruce Edmonson, MD, MPH, department of pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and his colleagues drew data from five states, including ambulatory surgery, inpatient, and emergency department discharge data sets provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for California, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

Participants included 504,262 patients under 21 years of age whose discharge records linked their inpatient or outpatient tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, with at least 90 days of follow-up.

In a longitudinal analysis, the research team investigated postoperative death within 30 days or during a surgical stay lasting over 30 days. They calculated postoperative mortality per 100,000 operations, both overall and classified by age group, sleep-disordered breathing, and complex chronic conditions.

The 504,262 children ranged in age from 0 to 20 years and underwent a total of 505,182 tonsillectomies. Of these, 10.1% were performed in children aged under 3 years, 28.9% in children with sleep-disordered breathing, and 2.8% in those with complex chronic conditions.

The 36 linked postoperative deaths occurred between 2 and 20.5 days after surgical admission, and 19 (53%) of the deaths occurred after surgical discharge.

The unadjusted mortality rate was 7.04 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-9.98) deaths per 100,000 procedures. In multivariable models, children younger than 3 years and children with sleep-disordered breathing were not significantly more likely to die.

But children with complex chronic conditions were significantly more likely to die than were children without those conditions (117.22 vs. 3.87 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively).

Children with complex chronic conditions underwent only 2.8% of all tonsillectomies, but they accounted for 44% of postoperative deaths. Most deaths linked with complex chronic conditions occurred among children with neurologic, neuromuscular, congenital, or genetic disorders.
 

Findings can help providers advise patients and their families about tonsillectomy risks

Kavita Dedhia, MD, MSHP, attending otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that she was not surprised by the findings.

“This study suggests that mortality is an extremely rare complication of tonsillectomy, and that children with complex medical conditions are at highest risk,” Dr. Dedhia, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“Due to their underlying comorbidities, medically fragile children are considered to be at higher risk while undergoing anesthesia and surgical procedures,” she added.

Dr. Dedhia noted that nonpatient factors the study did not explore may have affected the mortality rates, including each hospital’s experience with managing children with complex medical conditions, as well as whether the hospitals were tertiary care facilities, and pediatric or adult hospitals.

She would like to know what hospital or practice characteristics may have contributed to the mortality risk and whether increased mortality in these patients is limited to tonsillectomy or is also found with other surgical procedures.

“The strength of this study is that it is large and multi-regional and that it informs providers about patient factors impacting mortality in pediatric tonsillectomy,” Dr. Dedhia said. “This study arms surgeons with data to discuss mortality risk with the families of medically complex children undergoing tonsillectomy.”

The study authors and Dr. Dedhia report no relevant financial relationships. Funding information was not provided.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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