Even within the first year of implementation, the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act has made an impact.

“In the year prior to RACE implementation, there were no approvals of therapeutics that required pediatric studies,” said Brittany Avin McKelvey, PhD, science policy analyst with Friends of Cancer Research and a childhood cancer survivor. “Within the first year of implementation, almost half of approved therapeutics required pediatric study.”

The legislation was passed by Congress in 2017 and took effect in August 2020. It requires that therapeutics that are approved for adult cancers be tested in pediatric cancers if those drugs are directed at molecular targets relevant for pediatric cancers.

The RACE Act also requires testing of therapeutics that are given an orphan drug designation. Such drugs were previously exempt from pediatric trials.

Dr. McKelvey presented the new findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

To evaluate the impact of the RACE Act during the first year of its implementation, her team assessed all the new cancer drugs approved between August 2019 and August 2021.

Nineteen drugs were identified; 63.2% were approved in the year before the RACE Act took effect, and 36.8% were approved after its implementation. The team suspects that the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the lower number of post-RACE approvals.

The researchers found that prior to implementation of the RACE Act, none of the approved adult cancer therapeutics were required to be studied in pediatric populations. But more than 90% of those had molecular targets that would have required that they be studied in pediatric cancers had the RACE Act been in place. The majority of these drugs were exempt because of their designation as orphan drugs.

In the post-RACE group, however, 42.9% of approved drugs are required to be studied in pediatric cancers. One example is infigratinib (Truseltiq), a drug for adult cholangiocarcinoma that targets the protein fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). Truseltiq is an orphan drug – and thus would have been exempt prior to the RACE Act – but it will now be studied in pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic tumors harboring alterations in FGFR2.

“I find these results encouraging, but it is still very early,” said John Maris, MD, an attending physician and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 1 year into implementation, and this legislation will be around for a long time.”

In an interview, Dr. McKelvey noted that although a handful of clinical trials for pediatric cancers have been launched since implementation of RACE, many drugs are still being waived for pediatric study even when a relevant mechanism of action is present – largely because the extremely low incidence of many childhood cancers makes it impractical or, in some cases, impossible to conduct such studies. “This highlights the need for additional opportunities to help facilitate and encourage robust pediatric studies,” she said.

The main limitation of the study is that it examined data 1 year after the implementation of the RACE Act; further analysis is needed to determine the full extent of its impact, Dr. McKelvey said. “The true measure of success will be determined by whether increased pediatric studies actually translate to label expansions for pediatric patient populations and access to these therapies.”

The study was supported by funding from Friends of Cancer Research.

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

Even within the first year of implementation, the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act has made an impact.

“In the year prior to RACE implementation, there were no approvals of therapeutics that required pediatric studies,” said Brittany Avin McKelvey, PhD, science policy analyst with Friends of Cancer Research and a childhood cancer survivor. “Within the first year of implementation, almost half of approved therapeutics required pediatric study.”

The legislation was passed by Congress in 2017 and took effect in August 2020. It requires that therapeutics that are approved for adult cancers be tested in pediatric cancers if those drugs are directed at molecular targets relevant for pediatric cancers.

The RACE Act also requires testing of therapeutics that are given an orphan drug designation. Such drugs were previously exempt from pediatric trials.

Dr. McKelvey presented the new findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

To evaluate the impact of the RACE Act during the first year of its implementation, her team assessed all the new cancer drugs approved between August 2019 and August 2021.

Nineteen drugs were identified; 63.2% were approved in the year before the RACE Act took effect, and 36.8% were approved after its implementation. The team suspects that the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the lower number of post-RACE approvals.

The researchers found that prior to implementation of the RACE Act, none of the approved adult cancer therapeutics were required to be studied in pediatric populations. But more than 90% of those had molecular targets that would have required that they be studied in pediatric cancers had the RACE Act been in place. The majority of these drugs were exempt because of their designation as orphan drugs.

In the post-RACE group, however, 42.9% of approved drugs are required to be studied in pediatric cancers. One example is infigratinib (Truseltiq), a drug for adult cholangiocarcinoma that targets the protein fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). Truseltiq is an orphan drug – and thus would have been exempt prior to the RACE Act – but it will now be studied in pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic tumors harboring alterations in FGFR2.

“I find these results encouraging, but it is still very early,” said John Maris, MD, an attending physician and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 1 year into implementation, and this legislation will be around for a long time.”

In an interview, Dr. McKelvey noted that although a handful of clinical trials for pediatric cancers have been launched since implementation of RACE, many drugs are still being waived for pediatric study even when a relevant mechanism of action is present – largely because the extremely low incidence of many childhood cancers makes it impractical or, in some cases, impossible to conduct such studies. “This highlights the need for additional opportunities to help facilitate and encourage robust pediatric studies,” she said.

The main limitation of the study is that it examined data 1 year after the implementation of the RACE Act; further analysis is needed to determine the full extent of its impact, Dr. McKelvey said. “The true measure of success will be determined by whether increased pediatric studies actually translate to label expansions for pediatric patient populations and access to these therapies.”

The study was supported by funding from Friends of Cancer Research.

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

Even within the first year of implementation, the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act has made an impact.

“In the year prior to RACE implementation, there were no approvals of therapeutics that required pediatric studies,” said Brittany Avin McKelvey, PhD, science policy analyst with Friends of Cancer Research and a childhood cancer survivor. “Within the first year of implementation, almost half of approved therapeutics required pediatric study.”

The legislation was passed by Congress in 2017 and took effect in August 2020. It requires that therapeutics that are approved for adult cancers be tested in pediatric cancers if those drugs are directed at molecular targets relevant for pediatric cancers.

The RACE Act also requires testing of therapeutics that are given an orphan drug designation. Such drugs were previously exempt from pediatric trials.

Dr. McKelvey presented the new findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

To evaluate the impact of the RACE Act during the first year of its implementation, her team assessed all the new cancer drugs approved between August 2019 and August 2021.

Nineteen drugs were identified; 63.2% were approved in the year before the RACE Act took effect, and 36.8% were approved after its implementation. The team suspects that the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the lower number of post-RACE approvals.

The researchers found that prior to implementation of the RACE Act, none of the approved adult cancer therapeutics were required to be studied in pediatric populations. But more than 90% of those had molecular targets that would have required that they be studied in pediatric cancers had the RACE Act been in place. The majority of these drugs were exempt because of their designation as orphan drugs.

In the post-RACE group, however, 42.9% of approved drugs are required to be studied in pediatric cancers. One example is infigratinib (Truseltiq), a drug for adult cholangiocarcinoma that targets the protein fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). Truseltiq is an orphan drug – and thus would have been exempt prior to the RACE Act – but it will now be studied in pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic tumors harboring alterations in FGFR2.

“I find these results encouraging, but it is still very early,” said John Maris, MD, an attending physician and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 1 year into implementation, and this legislation will be around for a long time.”

In an interview, Dr. McKelvey noted that although a handful of clinical trials for pediatric cancers have been launched since implementation of RACE, many drugs are still being waived for pediatric study even when a relevant mechanism of action is present – largely because the extremely low incidence of many childhood cancers makes it impractical or, in some cases, impossible to conduct such studies. “This highlights the need for additional opportunities to help facilitate and encourage robust pediatric studies,” she said.

The main limitation of the study is that it examined data 1 year after the implementation of the RACE Act; further analysis is needed to determine the full extent of its impact, Dr. McKelvey said. “The true measure of success will be determined by whether increased pediatric studies actually translate to label expansions for pediatric patient populations and access to these therapies.”

The study was supported by funding from Friends of Cancer Research.

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

The goal of this activity is to update primary care practitioners (PCPs) on risk factors and trends in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development, as well as guideline recommendations and best practices for collaborating with specialists in HCC surveillance.

Click here to access this content now 

The goal of this activity is to update primary care practitioners (PCPs) on risk factors and trends in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development, as well as guideline recommendations and best practices for collaborating with specialists in HCC surveillance.

Click here to access this content now 

The goal of this activity is to update primary care practitioners (PCPs) on risk factors and trends in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development, as well as guideline recommendations and best practices for collaborating with specialists in HCC surveillance.

Click here to access this content now 

In more than 10% of cases in which ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) recurs in the same breast, the new lesion is genetically distinct from the original lesion, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

If these findings of de novo tumor recurrences hold true, “it should change how you should treat the patients in the clinic,” commented lead author Tanjina Kader, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of oncology at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in the University of Melbourne.

Up to a quarter of cases of DCIS recur, and half of those cases emerge in the form of invasive breast cancer. Currently, all recurrent tumor patients are provided the same treatment on the assumption that all recurrences arise from the primary lesion, Dr. Kader commented.

But the new findings could change this practice. If a patient with DCIS returns to the clinic with a tumor independent of the primary lesion, physicians should consider preventive therapies, such as mastectomy or genetic counseling, she said in an interview.

For their study, Dr. Kader and colleagues gathered patient samples and extracted 67 pairs of primary DCIS and their recurrences from the same breast. They also collected 32 samples from nonrecurrent cases of DCIS.

They then used advanced DNA sequencing methods to conduct detailed molecular analyses in order to determine whether the recurrences were genetically distinct from the original lesion.

The team found that 82% of cases appeared to be clonal – derived from the same ancestral cell as the original tumor – and 18% were nonclonal – arose independently of the original DCIS.

The researchers also identified specific genetic changes, including a mutation in the TP53 gene, that were present in recurrences of DCIS but not in nonrecurrent or nonclonal cases.

“It was surprising to see that nonclonal tumors have a similar genetic profile as nonrecurrent tumors,” Dr. Kader said. This means that, if these genetic changes are used as biomarkers to predict the recurrence of DCIS, they could lead to the undertreatment of patients who could develop nonclonal tumors, since these individuals may be categorized as having a low risk of recurrence, she explained.

“For the last 10 years, everyone has been trying their best to find a biomarker without actually taking into account that independent tumors can actually arise on the same breast independently,” Dr. Kader said.

The main limitation of this study was the lack of DNA from matched healthy cells to compare to the patient samples, said Dr. Kader. Because of the lack of these samples, the study focused only on chromosomal changes.

This study is “highly relevant, as it adds to our knowledge to what extent DCIS can be considered a precursor lesion as well as a risk lesion,” said Jelle Wesseling, MD, PhD, a breast pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. He was not involved in this research, but his team has also found that primary DCIS lesions and their subsequent events can be clonally unrelated.

Dr. Wesseling said there are still many questions, such as whether inherited genetic variants or the tumor microenvironment contribute to DCIS recurrences. “There is a lot more work to be done here to tease this out in more detail.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the Cancer Council Victoria, and the Victorian Cancer Agency.

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

In more than 10% of cases in which ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) recurs in the same breast, the new lesion is genetically distinct from the original lesion, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

If these findings of de novo tumor recurrences hold true, “it should change how you should treat the patients in the clinic,” commented lead author Tanjina Kader, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of oncology at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in the University of Melbourne.

Up to a quarter of cases of DCIS recur, and half of those cases emerge in the form of invasive breast cancer. Currently, all recurrent tumor patients are provided the same treatment on the assumption that all recurrences arise from the primary lesion, Dr. Kader commented.

But the new findings could change this practice. If a patient with DCIS returns to the clinic with a tumor independent of the primary lesion, physicians should consider preventive therapies, such as mastectomy or genetic counseling, she said in an interview.

For their study, Dr. Kader and colleagues gathered patient samples and extracted 67 pairs of primary DCIS and their recurrences from the same breast. They also collected 32 samples from nonrecurrent cases of DCIS.

They then used advanced DNA sequencing methods to conduct detailed molecular analyses in order to determine whether the recurrences were genetically distinct from the original lesion.

The team found that 82% of cases appeared to be clonal – derived from the same ancestral cell as the original tumor – and 18% were nonclonal – arose independently of the original DCIS.

The researchers also identified specific genetic changes, including a mutation in the TP53 gene, that were present in recurrences of DCIS but not in nonrecurrent or nonclonal cases.

“It was surprising to see that nonclonal tumors have a similar genetic profile as nonrecurrent tumors,” Dr. Kader said. This means that, if these genetic changes are used as biomarkers to predict the recurrence of DCIS, they could lead to the undertreatment of patients who could develop nonclonal tumors, since these individuals may be categorized as having a low risk of recurrence, she explained.

“For the last 10 years, everyone has been trying their best to find a biomarker without actually taking into account that independent tumors can actually arise on the same breast independently,” Dr. Kader said.

The main limitation of this study was the lack of DNA from matched healthy cells to compare to the patient samples, said Dr. Kader. Because of the lack of these samples, the study focused only on chromosomal changes.

This study is “highly relevant, as it adds to our knowledge to what extent DCIS can be considered a precursor lesion as well as a risk lesion,” said Jelle Wesseling, MD, PhD, a breast pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. He was not involved in this research, but his team has also found that primary DCIS lesions and their subsequent events can be clonally unrelated.

Dr. Wesseling said there are still many questions, such as whether inherited genetic variants or the tumor microenvironment contribute to DCIS recurrences. “There is a lot more work to be done here to tease this out in more detail.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the Cancer Council Victoria, and the Victorian Cancer Agency.

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

In more than 10% of cases in which ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) recurs in the same breast, the new lesion is genetically distinct from the original lesion, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

If these findings of de novo tumor recurrences hold true, “it should change how you should treat the patients in the clinic,” commented lead author Tanjina Kader, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of oncology at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in the University of Melbourne.

Up to a quarter of cases of DCIS recur, and half of those cases emerge in the form of invasive breast cancer. Currently, all recurrent tumor patients are provided the same treatment on the assumption that all recurrences arise from the primary lesion, Dr. Kader commented.

But the new findings could change this practice. If a patient with DCIS returns to the clinic with a tumor independent of the primary lesion, physicians should consider preventive therapies, such as mastectomy or genetic counseling, she said in an interview.

For their study, Dr. Kader and colleagues gathered patient samples and extracted 67 pairs of primary DCIS and their recurrences from the same breast. They also collected 32 samples from nonrecurrent cases of DCIS.

They then used advanced DNA sequencing methods to conduct detailed molecular analyses in order to determine whether the recurrences were genetically distinct from the original lesion.

The team found that 82% of cases appeared to be clonal – derived from the same ancestral cell as the original tumor – and 18% were nonclonal – arose independently of the original DCIS.

The researchers also identified specific genetic changes, including a mutation in the TP53 gene, that were present in recurrences of DCIS but not in nonrecurrent or nonclonal cases.

“It was surprising to see that nonclonal tumors have a similar genetic profile as nonrecurrent tumors,” Dr. Kader said. This means that, if these genetic changes are used as biomarkers to predict the recurrence of DCIS, they could lead to the undertreatment of patients who could develop nonclonal tumors, since these individuals may be categorized as having a low risk of recurrence, she explained.

“For the last 10 years, everyone has been trying their best to find a biomarker without actually taking into account that independent tumors can actually arise on the same breast independently,” Dr. Kader said.

The main limitation of this study was the lack of DNA from matched healthy cells to compare to the patient samples, said Dr. Kader. Because of the lack of these samples, the study focused only on chromosomal changes.

This study is “highly relevant, as it adds to our knowledge to what extent DCIS can be considered a precursor lesion as well as a risk lesion,” said Jelle Wesseling, MD, PhD, a breast pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. He was not involved in this research, but his team has also found that primary DCIS lesions and their subsequent events can be clonally unrelated.

Dr. Wesseling said there are still many questions, such as whether inherited genetic variants or the tumor microenvironment contribute to DCIS recurrences. “There is a lot more work to be done here to tease this out in more detail.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the Cancer Council Victoria, and the Victorian Cancer Agency.

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

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

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

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

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

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

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

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Extraverts and individuals who are disciplined are less likely to experience cognitive decline later in life, whereas those with neuroticism have an increased risk for cognitive dysfunction, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data from almost 2,000 individuals enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) – a longitudinal study of older adults living in the greater Chicago metropolitan region and northeastern Illinois – with recruitment that began in 1997 and continues through today. Participants received a personality assessment as well as annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

Those with high scores on measures of conscientiousness were significantly less likely to progress from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) during the study. In fact, scoring an extra 1 standard deviation on the conscientiousness scale was associated with a 22% lower risk of transitioning from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI. On the other hand, scoring an additional 1 SD on a neuroticism scale was associated with a 12% increased risk of transitioning to MCI.

Participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored high on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, tended to maintain normal cognitive functioning longer than other participants.

“Personality traits reflect relatively enduring patterns of thinking and behaving, which may cumulatively affect engagement in healthy and unhealthy behaviors and thought patterns across the lifespan,” lead author Tomiko Yoneda, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of medical social sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The accumulation of lifelong experiences may then contribute to susceptibility of particular diseases or disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment, or contribute to individual differences in the ability to withstand age-related neurological changes,” she added.

The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 

Competing risk factors

Personality traits “reflect an individual’s persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving,” Dr. Yoneda said.

“For example, conscientiousness is characterized by competence, dutifulness, and self-discipline, while neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, depressive symptoms, and emotional instability. Likewise, individuals high in extraversion tend to be enthusiastic, gregarious, talkative, and assertive,” she added.

Previous research “suggests that low conscientiousness and high neuroticism are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment,” she continued. However, “there is also an increased risk of death in older adulthood – in other words, these outcomes are ‘competing risk factors.’”

Dr. Yoneda said her team wanted to “examine the impact of personality traits on the simultaneous risk of transitioning to mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and death.”  

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1,954 participants in MAP (mean age at baseline 80 years, 73.7% female, 86.8% White), who received a personality assessment and annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

To assess personality traits – in particular, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion – the researchers used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). They also used multistate survival modeling to examine the potential association between these traits and transitions from one cognitive status category to another (NCI, MCI, and dementia) and to death.
 

Cognitive healthspan

By the end of the study, over half of the sample (54%) had died.

Most transitions showed “relative stability in cognitive status across measurement occasions.”

• NCI to NCI (n = 7,368)
• MCI to MCI (n = 1,244)
• Dementia to dementia (n = 876)

There were 725 “backward transitions” from MCI to NCI, “which may reflect improvement or within-person variability in cognitive functioning, or learning effects,” the authors note.

There were only 114 “backward transitions” from dementia to MCI and only 12 from dementia to NCI, “suggesting that improvement in cognitive status was relatively rare, particularly once an individual progresses to dementia.”

After adjusting for demographics, depressive symptoms, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele, the researchers found that personality traits were the most important factors in the transition from NCI to MCI.

Higher conscientiousness was associated with a decreased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.85). Conversely, higher neuroticism was associated with an increased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21) and a significantly decreased likelihood of transition back from MCI to NCI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

Scoring ~6 points on a conscientiousness scale ranging from 0-48 (that is, 1 SD on the scale) was significantly associated with ~22% lower risk of transitioning forward from NCI to MCI, while scoring ~7 more points on a neuroticism scale (1 SD) was significantly associated with ~12% higher risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI.

Higher extraversion was associated with an increased likelihood of transitioning from MCI back to NCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22), and although extraversion was not associated with a longer total lifespan, participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored low on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, maintained normal cognitive function longer than other participants.

“Our results suggest that high conscientiousness and low neuroticism may protect individuals against mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Yoneda.

Importantly, individuals who were either higher in conscientiousness, higher in extraversion, or lower in neuroticism had more years of “cognitive healthspan,” meaning more years without cognitive impairment,” she added.

In addition, “individuals lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion were more likely to recover after receiving an MCI diagnosis, suggesting that these traits may be protective even after an individual starts to progress to dementia,” she said.

The authors note that the study focused on only three of the Big Five personality traits, while the other 2 – openness to experience and agreeableness – may also be associated with cognitive aging processes and mortality.

Nevertheless, given the current results, alongside extensive research in the personality field, aiming to increase conscientiousness through persistent behavioral change is one potential strategy for promoting healthy cognitive aging, Dr. Yoneda said.
 

‘Invaluable window’

In a comment, Brent Roberts, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the study provides an “invaluable window into how personality affects the process of decline and either accelerates it, as in the role of neuroticism, or decelerates it, as in the role of conscientiousness.”

“I think the most fascinating finding was the fact that extraversion was related to transitioning from MCI back to NCI. These types of transitions have simply not been part of prior research, and it provides utterly unique insights and opportunities for interventions that may actually help people recover from a decline,” said Dr. Roberts, who was not involved in the research.

Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, called the paper “novel” because it investigated the transitions between normal cognition and mild impairment and between mild impairment and dementia.

Dr. Sexton, who was associated with this research team, cautioned that is it observational, “so it can illuminate associations or correlations, but not causes. As a result, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are behind these potential connections between personality and cognition, and more research is needed.”

The research was supported by the Alzheimer Society Research Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yoneda and co-authors, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extraverts and individuals who are disciplined are less likely to experience cognitive decline later in life, whereas those with neuroticism have an increased risk for cognitive dysfunction, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data from almost 2,000 individuals enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) – a longitudinal study of older adults living in the greater Chicago metropolitan region and northeastern Illinois – with recruitment that began in 1997 and continues through today. Participants received a personality assessment as well as annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

Those with high scores on measures of conscientiousness were significantly less likely to progress from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) during the study. In fact, scoring an extra 1 standard deviation on the conscientiousness scale was associated with a 22% lower risk of transitioning from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI. On the other hand, scoring an additional 1 SD on a neuroticism scale was associated with a 12% increased risk of transitioning to MCI.

Participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored high on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, tended to maintain normal cognitive functioning longer than other participants.

“Personality traits reflect relatively enduring patterns of thinking and behaving, which may cumulatively affect engagement in healthy and unhealthy behaviors and thought patterns across the lifespan,” lead author Tomiko Yoneda, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of medical social sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The accumulation of lifelong experiences may then contribute to susceptibility of particular diseases or disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment, or contribute to individual differences in the ability to withstand age-related neurological changes,” she added.

The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 

Competing risk factors

Personality traits “reflect an individual’s persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving,” Dr. Yoneda said.

“For example, conscientiousness is characterized by competence, dutifulness, and self-discipline, while neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, depressive symptoms, and emotional instability. Likewise, individuals high in extraversion tend to be enthusiastic, gregarious, talkative, and assertive,” she added.

Previous research “suggests that low conscientiousness and high neuroticism are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment,” she continued. However, “there is also an increased risk of death in older adulthood – in other words, these outcomes are ‘competing risk factors.’”

Dr. Yoneda said her team wanted to “examine the impact of personality traits on the simultaneous risk of transitioning to mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and death.”  

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1,954 participants in MAP (mean age at baseline 80 years, 73.7% female, 86.8% White), who received a personality assessment and annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

To assess personality traits – in particular, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion – the researchers used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). They also used multistate survival modeling to examine the potential association between these traits and transitions from one cognitive status category to another (NCI, MCI, and dementia) and to death.
 

Cognitive healthspan

By the end of the study, over half of the sample (54%) had died.

Most transitions showed “relative stability in cognitive status across measurement occasions.”

• NCI to NCI (n = 7,368)
• MCI to MCI (n = 1,244)
• Dementia to dementia (n = 876)

There were 725 “backward transitions” from MCI to NCI, “which may reflect improvement or within-person variability in cognitive functioning, or learning effects,” the authors note.

There were only 114 “backward transitions” from dementia to MCI and only 12 from dementia to NCI, “suggesting that improvement in cognitive status was relatively rare, particularly once an individual progresses to dementia.”

After adjusting for demographics, depressive symptoms, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele, the researchers found that personality traits were the most important factors in the transition from NCI to MCI.

Higher conscientiousness was associated with a decreased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.85). Conversely, higher neuroticism was associated with an increased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21) and a significantly decreased likelihood of transition back from MCI to NCI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

Scoring ~6 points on a conscientiousness scale ranging from 0-48 (that is, 1 SD on the scale) was significantly associated with ~22% lower risk of transitioning forward from NCI to MCI, while scoring ~7 more points on a neuroticism scale (1 SD) was significantly associated with ~12% higher risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI.

Higher extraversion was associated with an increased likelihood of transitioning from MCI back to NCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22), and although extraversion was not associated with a longer total lifespan, participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored low on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, maintained normal cognitive function longer than other participants.

“Our results suggest that high conscientiousness and low neuroticism may protect individuals against mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Yoneda.

Importantly, individuals who were either higher in conscientiousness, higher in extraversion, or lower in neuroticism had more years of “cognitive healthspan,” meaning more years without cognitive impairment,” she added.

In addition, “individuals lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion were more likely to recover after receiving an MCI diagnosis, suggesting that these traits may be protective even after an individual starts to progress to dementia,” she said.

The authors note that the study focused on only three of the Big Five personality traits, while the other 2 – openness to experience and agreeableness – may also be associated with cognitive aging processes and mortality.

Nevertheless, given the current results, alongside extensive research in the personality field, aiming to increase conscientiousness through persistent behavioral change is one potential strategy for promoting healthy cognitive aging, Dr. Yoneda said.
 

‘Invaluable window’

In a comment, Brent Roberts, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the study provides an “invaluable window into how personality affects the process of decline and either accelerates it, as in the role of neuroticism, or decelerates it, as in the role of conscientiousness.”

“I think the most fascinating finding was the fact that extraversion was related to transitioning from MCI back to NCI. These types of transitions have simply not been part of prior research, and it provides utterly unique insights and opportunities for interventions that may actually help people recover from a decline,” said Dr. Roberts, who was not involved in the research.

Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, called the paper “novel” because it investigated the transitions between normal cognition and mild impairment and between mild impairment and dementia.

Dr. Sexton, who was associated with this research team, cautioned that is it observational, “so it can illuminate associations or correlations, but not causes. As a result, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are behind these potential connections between personality and cognition, and more research is needed.”

The research was supported by the Alzheimer Society Research Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yoneda and co-authors, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extraverts and individuals who are disciplined are less likely to experience cognitive decline later in life, whereas those with neuroticism have an increased risk for cognitive dysfunction, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data from almost 2,000 individuals enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) – a longitudinal study of older adults living in the greater Chicago metropolitan region and northeastern Illinois – with recruitment that began in 1997 and continues through today. Participants received a personality assessment as well as annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

Those with high scores on measures of conscientiousness were significantly less likely to progress from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) during the study. In fact, scoring an extra 1 standard deviation on the conscientiousness scale was associated with a 22% lower risk of transitioning from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI. On the other hand, scoring an additional 1 SD on a neuroticism scale was associated with a 12% increased risk of transitioning to MCI.

Participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored high on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, tended to maintain normal cognitive functioning longer than other participants.

“Personality traits reflect relatively enduring patterns of thinking and behaving, which may cumulatively affect engagement in healthy and unhealthy behaviors and thought patterns across the lifespan,” lead author Tomiko Yoneda, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of medical social sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The accumulation of lifelong experiences may then contribute to susceptibility of particular diseases or disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment, or contribute to individual differences in the ability to withstand age-related neurological changes,” she added.

The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 

Competing risk factors

Personality traits “reflect an individual’s persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving,” Dr. Yoneda said.

“For example, conscientiousness is characterized by competence, dutifulness, and self-discipline, while neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, depressive symptoms, and emotional instability. Likewise, individuals high in extraversion tend to be enthusiastic, gregarious, talkative, and assertive,” she added.

Previous research “suggests that low conscientiousness and high neuroticism are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment,” she continued. However, “there is also an increased risk of death in older adulthood – in other words, these outcomes are ‘competing risk factors.’”

Dr. Yoneda said her team wanted to “examine the impact of personality traits on the simultaneous risk of transitioning to mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and death.”  

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1,954 participants in MAP (mean age at baseline 80 years, 73.7% female, 86.8% White), who received a personality assessment and annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

To assess personality traits – in particular, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion – the researchers used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). They also used multistate survival modeling to examine the potential association between these traits and transitions from one cognitive status category to another (NCI, MCI, and dementia) and to death.
 

Cognitive healthspan

By the end of the study, over half of the sample (54%) had died.

Most transitions showed “relative stability in cognitive status across measurement occasions.”

• NCI to NCI (n = 7,368)
• MCI to MCI (n = 1,244)
• Dementia to dementia (n = 876)

There were 725 “backward transitions” from MCI to NCI, “which may reflect improvement or within-person variability in cognitive functioning, or learning effects,” the authors note.

There were only 114 “backward transitions” from dementia to MCI and only 12 from dementia to NCI, “suggesting that improvement in cognitive status was relatively rare, particularly once an individual progresses to dementia.”

After adjusting for demographics, depressive symptoms, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele, the researchers found that personality traits were the most important factors in the transition from NCI to MCI.

Higher conscientiousness was associated with a decreased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.85). Conversely, higher neuroticism was associated with an increased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21) and a significantly decreased likelihood of transition back from MCI to NCI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

Scoring ~6 points on a conscientiousness scale ranging from 0-48 (that is, 1 SD on the scale) was significantly associated with ~22% lower risk of transitioning forward from NCI to MCI, while scoring ~7 more points on a neuroticism scale (1 SD) was significantly associated with ~12% higher risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI.

Higher extraversion was associated with an increased likelihood of transitioning from MCI back to NCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22), and although extraversion was not associated with a longer total lifespan, participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored low on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, maintained normal cognitive function longer than other participants.

“Our results suggest that high conscientiousness and low neuroticism may protect individuals against mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Yoneda.

Importantly, individuals who were either higher in conscientiousness, higher in extraversion, or lower in neuroticism had more years of “cognitive healthspan,” meaning more years without cognitive impairment,” she added.

In addition, “individuals lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion were more likely to recover after receiving an MCI diagnosis, suggesting that these traits may be protective even after an individual starts to progress to dementia,” she said.

The authors note that the study focused on only three of the Big Five personality traits, while the other 2 – openness to experience and agreeableness – may also be associated with cognitive aging processes and mortality.

Nevertheless, given the current results, alongside extensive research in the personality field, aiming to increase conscientiousness through persistent behavioral change is one potential strategy for promoting healthy cognitive aging, Dr. Yoneda said.
 

‘Invaluable window’

In a comment, Brent Roberts, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the study provides an “invaluable window into how personality affects the process of decline and either accelerates it, as in the role of neuroticism, or decelerates it, as in the role of conscientiousness.”

“I think the most fascinating finding was the fact that extraversion was related to transitioning from MCI back to NCI. These types of transitions have simply not been part of prior research, and it provides utterly unique insights and opportunities for interventions that may actually help people recover from a decline,” said Dr. Roberts, who was not involved in the research.

Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, called the paper “novel” because it investigated the transitions between normal cognition and mild impairment and between mild impairment and dementia.

Dr. Sexton, who was associated with this research team, cautioned that is it observational, “so it can illuminate associations or correlations, but not causes. As a result, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are behind these potential connections between personality and cognition, and more research is needed.”

The research was supported by the Alzheimer Society Research Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yoneda and co-authors, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

In an unprecedented murder case about end-of-life care, a physician accused of killing 14 critically ill patients with opioid overdoses in a Columbus, Ohio, hospital ICU over a period of 4 years was found not guilty by a jury April 20.

The jury, after a 7-week trial featuring more than 50 witnesses in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, declared William Husel, DO, not guilty on 14 counts of murder and attempted murder.

In a news conference after the verdict was announced, lead defense attorney Jose Baez said Dr. Husel, whom he called a “great doctor,” hopes to practice medicine again in the future. The verdict, he argued, offers an encouraging sign that physicians and other providers won’t face prosecution for providing “comfort care” to patients suffering pain. “They don’t need to be looking over their shoulders worrying about whether they’ll get charged with crimes,” he said.

The prosecutors in the case declined to comment, other than to say they “accept” the verdict.

Legal experts said it’s highly unlikely that Ohio or any other state would restore Dr. Husel’s suspended medical license. “I doubt he could ever work in medicine again,” said Mark Schumacher, a Columbus medical malpractice defense attorney who retired in 2020 after practicing for 39 years. Mr. Schumacher followed the trial closely.

The trial raised the specific issue of what constitutes a medically justifiable dose of opioid painkillers during the end-of-life procedure known as palliative extubation, in which critically ill patients are withdrawn from the ventilator when they are expected to die. Under medicine’s so-called double-effect principle, physicians must weigh the benefits and risks of ordering potentially lethal doses of painkillers and sedatives to provide comfort care for critically ill patients.

To many observers, however, the case really centered on the largely hidden debate over whether it’s acceptable to hasten the deaths of dying patients who haven’t chosen that path. That’s called euthanasia, which is illegal in the United States. In contrast, 10 states plus the District of Columbia allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who can self-administer them. That’s called medical aid in dying, or physician-assisted dying or suicide.

“Maybe this is a wake-up call that people believe this is the right thing to do,” said Lewis Nelson, MD, chair of emergency medicine at New Jersey Medical School in Newark. “The medical community has a sense that we often prolong life unnecessarily. But a physician cannot unilaterally decide it’s time for someone to die. It sounds like [Dr. Husel] took that decision into his own hands.”

The case also exposed major gaps in the patient safety culture at Mount Carmel West Hospital in Columbus, which is owned by the Catholic chain Trinity Health. Experts say failures by hospital staff to question physicians’ orders and raise patient safety concerns, as happened at Mount Carmel, occur at many hospitals around the country. Experts say the Husel case offers vital lessons for health care professionals about improving safety procedures.

“This is an extreme example, that everyone should learn from, about what not to do,” said Michael Cohen, RPh, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. “Husel was giving massive overdoses of drugs, people knew it was problematic, and someone didn’t put their foot down. You’ve got to have a process in place to address these situations where there is disagreement over the safety of a medication order.”

Dr. Husel was charged with killing the 14 patients from 2015 through 2018 by ordering single large doses of the painkiller fentanyl – from 500 to 2,000 micrograms – often in combination with other opioids and sedatives, while working as the solo physician on the overnight shift in the ICU at Mount Carmel West Hospital and at Mount Carmel St. Ann’s Hospital in Westerville, Ohio.

Dr. Husel ordered administration of the drugs while his patients were having an endotracheal tube removed as part of palliative extubation. There was conflicting testimony during the trial about whether the patients were showing signs of pain or were even capable of feeling pain.

Prosecutors argued that Dr. Husel, who did a residency and fellowship in critical care medicine at Cleveland Clinic and started working at Mount Carmel in 2013 in his first job as a full-fledged physician, intended to kill the patients or hasten their deaths. They contended that the inexperienced nurses in the ICU went along with his large drug doses because they were “in thrall” to him because of his prestigious background at the Cleveland Clinic and his willingness to take the time to teach them.

“With his training in anesthesiology, he knew what those drugs do,” assistant prosecutor David Zeyen said in closing arguments. “This isn’t negligence. This is on purpose ... Euthanizing animals with the intent to kill is fine in veterinary medicine. It’s not fine in the ICU at Mount Carmel or anywhere.”

The defense team argued that Dr. Husel was a caring and compassionate physician who ordered the drugs to relieve the patients’ pain and discomfort during the extubation process. He did not testify.

“Common sense says Dr Husel had no motive to harm patients,” defense attorney Baez said in his closing. “He dedicated his life to taking care of patients and saving lives, not taking them. ... Why would this man risk his family, career, and 17 years of trying to be a doctor to hasten someone’s death or kill them?”

There were 35 Mount Carmel patients who died in the ICU under Dr. Husel’s care after receiving large fentanyl doses during palliative extubation. The state originally charged him with murder in 25 of those cases, then reduced that to 14.

Many of Dr. Husel’s drug orders were given verbally instead of through the regular process of being entered into the electronic health record. He and the nurses on duty also skipped the standard nonemergency process of getting approval from the pharmacist on duty, instead using the override function on Mount Carmel’s automated Pyxis drug dispensing system.

Dr. Husel’s unusual dosing patterns were first reported to Mount Carmel officials by pharmacists in October 2018, spurring an investigation. The hospital system let him go in December 2018, after concluding that the opioid dosages he used were “significantly excessive and potentially fatal” and “went beyond providing comfort.”

Nearly two dozen RNs and two pharmacists involved in these cases have faced state disciplinary action, mostly license suspension. Federal and state agencies have cited the Mount Carmel system for faults in its patient safety processes and culture that were exposed by the Husel cases.

The Mount Carmel CEO; the chief clinical officer; other physician, nursing, and pharmacy leaders; and dozens of nurses and pharmacists were forced out following the Husel investigation.

In 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid  Services, after threatening to cut off federal reimbursements to Mount Carmel, accepted the hospital system’s correction plan restricting the use of verbal drug orders and prohibiting Pyxis system overrides for opioids except in life-threatening emergencies. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy hit Mount Carmel with $477,000 in fines and costs for pharmacy rules violations.

Mount Carmel and Trinity have settled a number of civil wrongful death lawsuits filed by the families of Dr. Husel’s patients for nearly $20 million, with many more suits pending. Gerry Leeseberg, a Columbus medical malpractice plaintiff attorney who is representing 17 of the families, said a number of the cases are set for trial starting in June.

During the trial, family members of many of the 14 patients whom Dr. Husel allegedly murdered testified that Dr. Husel told them their loved ones were dying. Some said they felt rushed into making a decision to extubate the person.

Before performing a palliative extubation, physicians commonly administer opioids and/or sedatives to ease pain and discomfort, and spare family members from witnessing their loved ones gasping for breath. But most medical experts – including the state’s two physician expert witnesses – say the fentanyl doses Dr. Husel ordered were 5-20 times larger than doses normally used in palliative extubation. Such doses, they say, will quickly kill most patients – except those with high opioid tolerance – by stopping their breathing.

Physicians say they typically give much smaller doses of fentanyl or morphine, then administer more as needed if they observe the patient experiencing pain or distress. Mount Carmel’s 2016 guidelines for IV administration of fentanyl specified a dosage range of 50-100 micrograms for relieving pain, and its 2018 guidelines reduced that to 25-50 micrograms.

The doses Dr. Husel ordered are lethal, even for most patients with some tolerance to opioids, said Rutgers EM chair Dr. Nelson, who practices medical toxicology and addiction medicine. “Those are doses to provide euthanasia, not to relieve pain.”

At trial, the prosecutors had to overcome two big challenges to win murder convictions against Dr. Husel: They had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs Dr. Husel ordered are what directly caused these critically ill patients to die, and that he intended to kill them.

Late in the trial, at the state’s request, the judge ruled to allow the jury to also consider attempted murder charges, which require proof of intent but not that the defendant’s actions directly caused the deaths.

Another challenge was that physicians have certain legal protections for administering drugs to patients for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering, even if the drugs hasten the patients’ deaths – as long the intent was not to cause death and the drugs were properly used. This is known as the double-effect principle. In contrast, intentional killing to relieve pain and suffering is called euthanasia. That’s what prosecutors accused Dr. Husel of doing.

“If you hasten a person’s death, even if their death is as sure as the sun is going to rise in the morning ... you have caused their death in the eyes of the law,” assistant prosecutor Mr. Zeyen said in his closing. “You don’t get a pass for killing a dying man ...”

Mr. Leeseberg said it was always going to be extremely hard to convince a jury to convict a physician of murder, with the potential of life in prison, in a case where the physician’s acts occurred openly over 4 years in a hospital setting where no one did anything to stop him. It would have been much easier to convince a jury to convict him of reckless homicide, a lesser offense with a shorter prison term. That would have required proving that he acted in reckless disregard for his patients’ health and safety.

In post-verdict comments to the news media, Judge Michael Holbrook said jurors told him that the procedures for the dispensing of fentanyl and other drugs at Mount Carmel weren’t properly explained to them during the trial, and that they were confused by the large number of prosecution witnesses. He also said they were confused that no one had stated a maximum dosage for fentanyl.

Mr. Schumacher, the retired malpractice defense lawyer who followed the trial, disagreed with defense attorney Baez’s takeaway about the impact of the case on pain-relief practices. In his view, the case likely will heighten rather than reduce the anxiety of physicians and nurses about administering opioids, even when the dosages are clearly needed and appropriate. He doesn’t think Dr. Husel’s dosages can be justified, however. 

“Physicians have a naive overreaction to any legal development, and overgeneralize from a particular case to everyday practice,” he said.

There is only one known prior case that’s somewhat comparable of a physician tried for murder or attempted murder for giving a critically ill patient opioids for pain relief. In 1996, a Kansas jury convicted Lloyd Stanley Naramore, DO, of attempted murder in the death of a patient to whom he gave an opioid, and of second-degree murder for removing a patient from a ventilator. After Dr. Naramore served 6 months in prison, an appellate court reversed the convictions for lack of evidence.

In March, RaDonda Vaught, a nurse who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted of criminal neglect and negligent homicide for mistakenly administering a fatal dose of the paralyzing drug vecuronium, instead of the prescribed drug Versed (midazolam), to a patient. Providers around the country were alarmed by her criminal prosecution for what was clearly an unintentional error.

But legal and medical experts said Dr. Husel’s case was sharply different from Vaught’s and Dr. Naramore’s because he deliberately and repeatedly ordered large doses of fentanyl and other drugs that he knew or should have known were potentially lethal. “You don’t need 2,000 micrograms of fentanyl plus other drugs for comfort care, and repeat that again and again for patient after patient,” said Mr. Cohen, of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. “No one gives that to patients. You’ll knock them off.”

During the trial, prosecutors said repeatedly that no one except Dr. Husel knows what he was thinking when he ordered those huge drug dosages for his ICU patients. Judge Holbrook told the jury the state did not have to prove motive, only intent. But many observers still have wondered what his motives were.

Dr. Husel’s own view of his care in these cases soon will become public. Immediately after the April 20 verdict, Mr. Leeseberg filed a notice requesting a May 9 deposition of Dr. Husel, who will no longer be able to claim the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He predicted the deposition will last about a week, and then the transcript will be publicly available.

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

In an unprecedented murder case about end-of-life care, a physician accused of killing 14 critically ill patients with opioid overdoses in a Columbus, Ohio, hospital ICU over a period of 4 years was found not guilty by a jury April 20.

The jury, after a 7-week trial featuring more than 50 witnesses in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, declared William Husel, DO, not guilty on 14 counts of murder and attempted murder.

In a news conference after the verdict was announced, lead defense attorney Jose Baez said Dr. Husel, whom he called a “great doctor,” hopes to practice medicine again in the future. The verdict, he argued, offers an encouraging sign that physicians and other providers won’t face prosecution for providing “comfort care” to patients suffering pain. “They don’t need to be looking over their shoulders worrying about whether they’ll get charged with crimes,” he said.

The prosecutors in the case declined to comment, other than to say they “accept” the verdict.

Legal experts said it’s highly unlikely that Ohio or any other state would restore Dr. Husel’s suspended medical license. “I doubt he could ever work in medicine again,” said Mark Schumacher, a Columbus medical malpractice defense attorney who retired in 2020 after practicing for 39 years. Mr. Schumacher followed the trial closely.

The trial raised the specific issue of what constitutes a medically justifiable dose of opioid painkillers during the end-of-life procedure known as palliative extubation, in which critically ill patients are withdrawn from the ventilator when they are expected to die. Under medicine’s so-called double-effect principle, physicians must weigh the benefits and risks of ordering potentially lethal doses of painkillers and sedatives to provide comfort care for critically ill patients.

To many observers, however, the case really centered on the largely hidden debate over whether it’s acceptable to hasten the deaths of dying patients who haven’t chosen that path. That’s called euthanasia, which is illegal in the United States. In contrast, 10 states plus the District of Columbia allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who can self-administer them. That’s called medical aid in dying, or physician-assisted dying or suicide.

“Maybe this is a wake-up call that people believe this is the right thing to do,” said Lewis Nelson, MD, chair of emergency medicine at New Jersey Medical School in Newark. “The medical community has a sense that we often prolong life unnecessarily. But a physician cannot unilaterally decide it’s time for someone to die. It sounds like [Dr. Husel] took that decision into his own hands.”

The case also exposed major gaps in the patient safety culture at Mount Carmel West Hospital in Columbus, which is owned by the Catholic chain Trinity Health. Experts say failures by hospital staff to question physicians’ orders and raise patient safety concerns, as happened at Mount Carmel, occur at many hospitals around the country. Experts say the Husel case offers vital lessons for health care professionals about improving safety procedures.

“This is an extreme example, that everyone should learn from, about what not to do,” said Michael Cohen, RPh, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. “Husel was giving massive overdoses of drugs, people knew it was problematic, and someone didn’t put their foot down. You’ve got to have a process in place to address these situations where there is disagreement over the safety of a medication order.”

Dr. Husel was charged with killing the 14 patients from 2015 through 2018 by ordering single large doses of the painkiller fentanyl – from 500 to 2,000 micrograms – often in combination with other opioids and sedatives, while working as the solo physician on the overnight shift in the ICU at Mount Carmel West Hospital and at Mount Carmel St. Ann’s Hospital in Westerville, Ohio.

Dr. Husel ordered administration of the drugs while his patients were having an endotracheal tube removed as part of palliative extubation. There was conflicting testimony during the trial about whether the patients were showing signs of pain or were even capable of feeling pain.

Prosecutors argued that Dr. Husel, who did a residency and fellowship in critical care medicine at Cleveland Clinic and started working at Mount Carmel in 2013 in his first job as a full-fledged physician, intended to kill the patients or hasten their deaths. They contended that the inexperienced nurses in the ICU went along with his large drug doses because they were “in thrall” to him because of his prestigious background at the Cleveland Clinic and his willingness to take the time to teach them.

“With his training in anesthesiology, he knew what those drugs do,” assistant prosecutor David Zeyen said in closing arguments. “This isn’t negligence. This is on purpose ... Euthanizing animals with the intent to kill is fine in veterinary medicine. It’s not fine in the ICU at Mount Carmel or anywhere.”

The defense team argued that Dr. Husel was a caring and compassionate physician who ordered the drugs to relieve the patients’ pain and discomfort during the extubation process. He did not testify.

“Common sense says Dr Husel had no motive to harm patients,” defense attorney Baez said in his closing. “He dedicated his life to taking care of patients and saving lives, not taking them. ... Why would this man risk his family, career, and 17 years of trying to be a doctor to hasten someone’s death or kill them?”

There were 35 Mount Carmel patients who died in the ICU under Dr. Husel’s care after receiving large fentanyl doses during palliative extubation. The state originally charged him with murder in 25 of those cases, then reduced that to 14.

Many of Dr. Husel’s drug orders were given verbally instead of through the regular process of being entered into the electronic health record. He and the nurses on duty also skipped the standard nonemergency process of getting approval from the pharmacist on duty, instead using the override function on Mount Carmel’s automated Pyxis drug dispensing system.

Dr. Husel’s unusual dosing patterns were first reported to Mount Carmel officials by pharmacists in October 2018, spurring an investigation. The hospital system let him go in December 2018, after concluding that the opioid dosages he used were “significantly excessive and potentially fatal” and “went beyond providing comfort.”

Nearly two dozen RNs and two pharmacists involved in these cases have faced state disciplinary action, mostly license suspension. Federal and state agencies have cited the Mount Carmel system for faults in its patient safety processes and culture that were exposed by the Husel cases.

The Mount Carmel CEO; the chief clinical officer; other physician, nursing, and pharmacy leaders; and dozens of nurses and pharmacists were forced out following the Husel investigation.

In 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid  Services, after threatening to cut off federal reimbursements to Mount Carmel, accepted the hospital system’s correction plan restricting the use of verbal drug orders and prohibiting Pyxis system overrides for opioids except in life-threatening emergencies. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy hit Mount Carmel with $477,000 in fines and costs for pharmacy rules violations.

Mount Carmel and Trinity have settled a number of civil wrongful death lawsuits filed by the families of Dr. Husel’s patients for nearly $20 million, with many more suits pending. Gerry Leeseberg, a Columbus medical malpractice plaintiff attorney who is representing 17 of the families, said a number of the cases are set for trial starting in June.

During the trial, family members of many of the 14 patients whom Dr. Husel allegedly murdered testified that Dr. Husel told them their loved ones were dying. Some said they felt rushed into making a decision to extubate the person.

Before performing a palliative extubation, physicians commonly administer opioids and/or sedatives to ease pain and discomfort, and spare family members from witnessing their loved ones gasping for breath. But most medical experts – including the state’s two physician expert witnesses – say the fentanyl doses Dr. Husel ordered were 5-20 times larger than doses normally used in palliative extubation. Such doses, they say, will quickly kill most patients – except those with high opioid tolerance – by stopping their breathing.

Physicians say they typically give much smaller doses of fentanyl or morphine, then administer more as needed if they observe the patient experiencing pain or distress. Mount Carmel’s 2016 guidelines for IV administration of fentanyl specified a dosage range of 50-100 micrograms for relieving pain, and its 2018 guidelines reduced that to 25-50 micrograms.

The doses Dr. Husel ordered are lethal, even for most patients with some tolerance to opioids, said Rutgers EM chair Dr. Nelson, who practices medical toxicology and addiction medicine. “Those are doses to provide euthanasia, not to relieve pain.”

At trial, the prosecutors had to overcome two big challenges to win murder convictions against Dr. Husel: They had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs Dr. Husel ordered are what directly caused these critically ill patients to die, and that he intended to kill them.

Late in the trial, at the state’s request, the judge ruled to allow the jury to also consider attempted murder charges, which require proof of intent but not that the defendant’s actions directly caused the deaths.

Another challenge was that physicians have certain legal protections for administering drugs to patients for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering, even if the drugs hasten the patients’ deaths – as long the intent was not to cause death and the drugs were properly used. This is known as the double-effect principle. In contrast, intentional killing to relieve pain and suffering is called euthanasia. That’s what prosecutors accused Dr. Husel of doing.

“If you hasten a person’s death, even if their death is as sure as the sun is going to rise in the morning ... you have caused their death in the eyes of the law,” assistant prosecutor Mr. Zeyen said in his closing. “You don’t get a pass for killing a dying man ...”

Mr. Leeseberg said it was always going to be extremely hard to convince a jury to convict a physician of murder, with the potential of life in prison, in a case where the physician’s acts occurred openly over 4 years in a hospital setting where no one did anything to stop him. It would have been much easier to convince a jury to convict him of reckless homicide, a lesser offense with a shorter prison term. That would have required proving that he acted in reckless disregard for his patients’ health and safety.

In post-verdict comments to the news media, Judge Michael Holbrook said jurors told him that the procedures for the dispensing of fentanyl and other drugs at Mount Carmel weren’t properly explained to them during the trial, and that they were confused by the large number of prosecution witnesses. He also said they were confused that no one had stated a maximum dosage for fentanyl.

Mr. Schumacher, the retired malpractice defense lawyer who followed the trial, disagreed with defense attorney Baez’s takeaway about the impact of the case on pain-relief practices. In his view, the case likely will heighten rather than reduce the anxiety of physicians and nurses about administering opioids, even when the dosages are clearly needed and appropriate. He doesn’t think Dr. Husel’s dosages can be justified, however. 

“Physicians have a naive overreaction to any legal development, and overgeneralize from a particular case to everyday practice,” he said.

There is only one known prior case that’s somewhat comparable of a physician tried for murder or attempted murder for giving a critically ill patient opioids for pain relief. In 1996, a Kansas jury convicted Lloyd Stanley Naramore, DO, of attempted murder in the death of a patient to whom he gave an opioid, and of second-degree murder for removing a patient from a ventilator. After Dr. Naramore served 6 months in prison, an appellate court reversed the convictions for lack of evidence.

In March, RaDonda Vaught, a nurse who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted of criminal neglect and negligent homicide for mistakenly administering a fatal dose of the paralyzing drug vecuronium, instead of the prescribed drug Versed (midazolam), to a patient. Providers around the country were alarmed by her criminal prosecution for what was clearly an unintentional error.

But legal and medical experts said Dr. Husel’s case was sharply different from Vaught’s and Dr. Naramore’s because he deliberately and repeatedly ordered large doses of fentanyl and other drugs that he knew or should have known were potentially lethal. “You don’t need 2,000 micrograms of fentanyl plus other drugs for comfort care, and repeat that again and again for patient after patient,” said Mr. Cohen, of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. “No one gives that to patients. You’ll knock them off.”

During the trial, prosecutors said repeatedly that no one except Dr. Husel knows what he was thinking when he ordered those huge drug dosages for his ICU patients. Judge Holbrook told the jury the state did not have to prove motive, only intent. But many observers still have wondered what his motives were.

Dr. Husel’s own view of his care in these cases soon will become public. Immediately after the April 20 verdict, Mr. Leeseberg filed a notice requesting a May 9 deposition of Dr. Husel, who will no longer be able to claim the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He predicted the deposition will last about a week, and then the transcript will be publicly available.

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

In an unprecedented murder case about end-of-life care, a physician accused of killing 14 critically ill patients with opioid overdoses in a Columbus, Ohio, hospital ICU over a period of 4 years was found not guilty by a jury April 20.

The jury, after a 7-week trial featuring more than 50 witnesses in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, declared William Husel, DO, not guilty on 14 counts of murder and attempted murder.

In a news conference after the verdict was announced, lead defense attorney Jose Baez said Dr. Husel, whom he called a “great doctor,” hopes to practice medicine again in the future. The verdict, he argued, offers an encouraging sign that physicians and other providers won’t face prosecution for providing “comfort care” to patients suffering pain. “They don’t need to be looking over their shoulders worrying about whether they’ll get charged with crimes,” he said.

The prosecutors in the case declined to comment, other than to say they “accept” the verdict.

Legal experts said it’s highly unlikely that Ohio or any other state would restore Dr. Husel’s suspended medical license. “I doubt he could ever work in medicine again,” said Mark Schumacher, a Columbus medical malpractice defense attorney who retired in 2020 after practicing for 39 years. Mr. Schumacher followed the trial closely.

The trial raised the specific issue of what constitutes a medically justifiable dose of opioid painkillers during the end-of-life procedure known as palliative extubation, in which critically ill patients are withdrawn from the ventilator when they are expected to die. Under medicine’s so-called double-effect principle, physicians must weigh the benefits and risks of ordering potentially lethal doses of painkillers and sedatives to provide comfort care for critically ill patients.

To many observers, however, the case really centered on the largely hidden debate over whether it’s acceptable to hasten the deaths of dying patients who haven’t chosen that path. That’s called euthanasia, which is illegal in the United States. In contrast, 10 states plus the District of Columbia allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who can self-administer them. That’s called medical aid in dying, or physician-assisted dying or suicide.

“Maybe this is a wake-up call that people believe this is the right thing to do,” said Lewis Nelson, MD, chair of emergency medicine at New Jersey Medical School in Newark. “The medical community has a sense that we often prolong life unnecessarily. But a physician cannot unilaterally decide it’s time for someone to die. It sounds like [Dr. Husel] took that decision into his own hands.”

The case also exposed major gaps in the patient safety culture at Mount Carmel West Hospital in Columbus, which is owned by the Catholic chain Trinity Health. Experts say failures by hospital staff to question physicians’ orders and raise patient safety concerns, as happened at Mount Carmel, occur at many hospitals around the country. Experts say the Husel case offers vital lessons for health care professionals about improving safety procedures.

“This is an extreme example, that everyone should learn from, about what not to do,” said Michael Cohen, RPh, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. “Husel was giving massive overdoses of drugs, people knew it was problematic, and someone didn’t put their foot down. You’ve got to have a process in place to address these situations where there is disagreement over the safety of a medication order.”

Dr. Husel was charged with killing the 14 patients from 2015 through 2018 by ordering single large doses of the painkiller fentanyl – from 500 to 2,000 micrograms – often in combination with other opioids and sedatives, while working as the solo physician on the overnight shift in the ICU at Mount Carmel West Hospital and at Mount Carmel St. Ann’s Hospital in Westerville, Ohio.

Dr. Husel ordered administration of the drugs while his patients were having an endotracheal tube removed as part of palliative extubation. There was conflicting testimony during the trial about whether the patients were showing signs of pain or were even capable of feeling pain.

Prosecutors argued that Dr. Husel, who did a residency and fellowship in critical care medicine at Cleveland Clinic and started working at Mount Carmel in 2013 in his first job as a full-fledged physician, intended to kill the patients or hasten their deaths. They contended that the inexperienced nurses in the ICU went along with his large drug doses because they were “in thrall” to him because of his prestigious background at the Cleveland Clinic and his willingness to take the time to teach them.

“With his training in anesthesiology, he knew what those drugs do,” assistant prosecutor David Zeyen said in closing arguments. “This isn’t negligence. This is on purpose ... Euthanizing animals with the intent to kill is fine in veterinary medicine. It’s not fine in the ICU at Mount Carmel or anywhere.”

The defense team argued that Dr. Husel was a caring and compassionate physician who ordered the drugs to relieve the patients’ pain and discomfort during the extubation process. He did not testify.

“Common sense says Dr Husel had no motive to harm patients,” defense attorney Baez said in his closing. “He dedicated his life to taking care of patients and saving lives, not taking them. ... Why would this man risk his family, career, and 17 years of trying to be a doctor to hasten someone’s death or kill them?”

There were 35 Mount Carmel patients who died in the ICU under Dr. Husel’s care after receiving large fentanyl doses during palliative extubation. The state originally charged him with murder in 25 of those cases, then reduced that to 14.

Many of Dr. Husel’s drug orders were given verbally instead of through the regular process of being entered into the electronic health record. He and the nurses on duty also skipped the standard nonemergency process of getting approval from the pharmacist on duty, instead using the override function on Mount Carmel’s automated Pyxis drug dispensing system.

Dr. Husel’s unusual dosing patterns were first reported to Mount Carmel officials by pharmacists in October 2018, spurring an investigation. The hospital system let him go in December 2018, after concluding that the opioid dosages he used were “significantly excessive and potentially fatal” and “went beyond providing comfort.”

Nearly two dozen RNs and two pharmacists involved in these cases have faced state disciplinary action, mostly license suspension. Federal and state agencies have cited the Mount Carmel system for faults in its patient safety processes and culture that were exposed by the Husel cases.

The Mount Carmel CEO; the chief clinical officer; other physician, nursing, and pharmacy leaders; and dozens of nurses and pharmacists were forced out following the Husel investigation.

In 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid  Services, after threatening to cut off federal reimbursements to Mount Carmel, accepted the hospital system’s correction plan restricting the use of verbal drug orders and prohibiting Pyxis system overrides for opioids except in life-threatening emergencies. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy hit Mount Carmel with $477,000 in fines and costs for pharmacy rules violations.

Mount Carmel and Trinity have settled a number of civil wrongful death lawsuits filed by the families of Dr. Husel’s patients for nearly $20 million, with many more suits pending. Gerry Leeseberg, a Columbus medical malpractice plaintiff attorney who is representing 17 of the families, said a number of the cases are set for trial starting in June.

During the trial, family members of many of the 14 patients whom Dr. Husel allegedly murdered testified that Dr. Husel told them their loved ones were dying. Some said they felt rushed into making a decision to extubate the person.

Before performing a palliative extubation, physicians commonly administer opioids and/or sedatives to ease pain and discomfort, and spare family members from witnessing their loved ones gasping for breath. But most medical experts – including the state’s two physician expert witnesses – say the fentanyl doses Dr. Husel ordered were 5-20 times larger than doses normally used in palliative extubation. Such doses, they say, will quickly kill most patients – except those with high opioid tolerance – by stopping their breathing.

Physicians say they typically give much smaller doses of fentanyl or morphine, then administer more as needed if they observe the patient experiencing pain or distress. Mount Carmel’s 2016 guidelines for IV administration of fentanyl specified a dosage range of 50-100 micrograms for relieving pain, and its 2018 guidelines reduced that to 25-50 micrograms.

The doses Dr. Husel ordered are lethal, even for most patients with some tolerance to opioids, said Rutgers EM chair Dr. Nelson, who practices medical toxicology and addiction medicine. “Those are doses to provide euthanasia, not to relieve pain.”

At trial, the prosecutors had to overcome two big challenges to win murder convictions against Dr. Husel: They had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs Dr. Husel ordered are what directly caused these critically ill patients to die, and that he intended to kill them.

Late in the trial, at the state’s request, the judge ruled to allow the jury to also consider attempted murder charges, which require proof of intent but not that the defendant’s actions directly caused the deaths.

Another challenge was that physicians have certain legal protections for administering drugs to patients for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering, even if the drugs hasten the patients’ deaths – as long the intent was not to cause death and the drugs were properly used. This is known as the double-effect principle. In contrast, intentional killing to relieve pain and suffering is called euthanasia. That’s what prosecutors accused Dr. Husel of doing.

“If you hasten a person’s death, even if their death is as sure as the sun is going to rise in the morning ... you have caused their death in the eyes of the law,” assistant prosecutor Mr. Zeyen said in his closing. “You don’t get a pass for killing a dying man ...”

Mr. Leeseberg said it was always going to be extremely hard to convince a jury to convict a physician of murder, with the potential of life in prison, in a case where the physician’s acts occurred openly over 4 years in a hospital setting where no one did anything to stop him. It would have been much easier to convince a jury to convict him of reckless homicide, a lesser offense with a shorter prison term. That would have required proving that he acted in reckless disregard for his patients’ health and safety.

In post-verdict comments to the news media, Judge Michael Holbrook said jurors told him that the procedures for the dispensing of fentanyl and other drugs at Mount Carmel weren’t properly explained to them during the trial, and that they were confused by the large number of prosecution witnesses. He also said they were confused that no one had stated a maximum dosage for fentanyl.

Mr. Schumacher, the retired malpractice defense lawyer who followed the trial, disagreed with defense attorney Baez’s takeaway about the impact of the case on pain-relief practices. In his view, the case likely will heighten rather than reduce the anxiety of physicians and nurses about administering opioids, even when the dosages are clearly needed and appropriate. He doesn’t think Dr. Husel’s dosages can be justified, however. 

“Physicians have a naive overreaction to any legal development, and overgeneralize from a particular case to everyday practice,” he said.

There is only one known prior case that’s somewhat comparable of a physician tried for murder or attempted murder for giving a critically ill patient opioids for pain relief. In 1996, a Kansas jury convicted Lloyd Stanley Naramore, DO, of attempted murder in the death of a patient to whom he gave an opioid, and of second-degree murder for removing a patient from a ventilator. After Dr. Naramore served 6 months in prison, an appellate court reversed the convictions for lack of evidence.

In March, RaDonda Vaught, a nurse who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted of criminal neglect and negligent homicide for mistakenly administering a fatal dose of the paralyzing drug vecuronium, instead of the prescribed drug Versed (midazolam), to a patient. Providers around the country were alarmed by her criminal prosecution for what was clearly an unintentional error.

But legal and medical experts said Dr. Husel’s case was sharply different from Vaught’s and Dr. Naramore’s because he deliberately and repeatedly ordered large doses of fentanyl and other drugs that he knew or should have known were potentially lethal. “You don’t need 2,000 micrograms of fentanyl plus other drugs for comfort care, and repeat that again and again for patient after patient,” said Mr. Cohen, of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. “No one gives that to patients. You’ll knock them off.”

During the trial, prosecutors said repeatedly that no one except Dr. Husel knows what he was thinking when he ordered those huge drug dosages for his ICU patients. Judge Holbrook told the jury the state did not have to prove motive, only intent. But many observers still have wondered what his motives were.

Dr. Husel’s own view of his care in these cases soon will become public. Immediately after the April 20 verdict, Mr. Leeseberg filed a notice requesting a May 9 deposition of Dr. Husel, who will no longer be able to claim the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He predicted the deposition will last about a week, and then the transcript will be publicly available.

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