The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to offer women information on abortion services, ruling that the measure violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.

“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.  

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to offer women information on abortion services, ruling that the measure violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.

“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.  

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to offer women information on abortion services, ruling that the measure violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the California law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the high court’s majority stance contradicts a previous decision in which justices required physicians who performed abortions to give information about adoption services.

“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services?” he asked. “As the question suggests, there is no convincing reason to distinguish between information about adoption and information about abortion in this context.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has broad implications in the health care setting and other sectors that physicians and other professionals should celebrate, said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. The professional-speech doctrine that the Supreme Court rejected in the case posed a serious danger to the free-speech rights of health providers, Mr. McNamara said in an interview.  

Background: Patients who complain of chest pain make up over a quarter of annual hospital admissions, but not all chest pain is attributable to acute coronary syndrome. The one-page CPC document was developed to facilitate joint decision making between low-risk patients and providers regarding the work-up for chest pain.

Study design: Parallel, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Six U.S. medical centers.

Synopsis: After reviewing the CPC tool, patients with low cardiac risk who presented to the ED with chest pain were given the option either to be admitted to the hospital for cardiac testing or to not be admitted and instead follow up with their primary care doctor or a cardiologist within 3 days to determine what further cardiac work-up might be warranted.

Upon reviewing data obtained from 898 patient diaries regarding use of health care services, as well as from billing data from the medical centers, the researchers found no statistically significant difference between patients who used the CPC tool and those treated under usual care with regard to hospital readmission rates, length of stay in the ED, repeat ED visits, or clinic visits. However, at the 45-day follow-up mark, those in the CPC group had undergone fewer tests and cardiac imaging studies (decrease of 125.6 tests/100 patients; 95% confidence interval, 29.3-221.6).

Bottom line: Shared decision making between providers and patients with low cardiac risk factors that used the Chest Pain Choice tool decreased some health care utilization without worsening outcomes.

Citation: Schaffer JT et al. Impact of a shared decision-making intervention on health care utilization: A secondary analysis of the Chest Pain Choice multicenter randomized trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar;25(3):293-300.

Dr. Ally is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.

Background: Patients who complain of chest pain make up over a quarter of annual hospital admissions, but not all chest pain is attributable to acute coronary syndrome. The one-page CPC document was developed to facilitate joint decision making between low-risk patients and providers regarding the work-up for chest pain.

Study design: Parallel, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Six U.S. medical centers.

Synopsis: After reviewing the CPC tool, patients with low cardiac risk who presented to the ED with chest pain were given the option either to be admitted to the hospital for cardiac testing or to not be admitted and instead follow up with their primary care doctor or a cardiologist within 3 days to determine what further cardiac work-up might be warranted.

Upon reviewing data obtained from 898 patient diaries regarding use of health care services, as well as from billing data from the medical centers, the researchers found no statistically significant difference between patients who used the CPC tool and those treated under usual care with regard to hospital readmission rates, length of stay in the ED, repeat ED visits, or clinic visits. However, at the 45-day follow-up mark, those in the CPC group had undergone fewer tests and cardiac imaging studies (decrease of 125.6 tests/100 patients; 95% confidence interval, 29.3-221.6).

Bottom line: Shared decision making between providers and patients with low cardiac risk factors that used the Chest Pain Choice tool decreased some health care utilization without worsening outcomes.

Citation: Schaffer JT et al. Impact of a shared decision-making intervention on health care utilization: A secondary analysis of the Chest Pain Choice multicenter randomized trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar;25(3):293-300.

Dr. Ally is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.

Background: Patients who complain of chest pain make up over a quarter of annual hospital admissions, but not all chest pain is attributable to acute coronary syndrome. The one-page CPC document was developed to facilitate joint decision making between low-risk patients and providers regarding the work-up for chest pain.

Study design: Parallel, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Six U.S. medical centers.

Synopsis: After reviewing the CPC tool, patients with low cardiac risk who presented to the ED with chest pain were given the option either to be admitted to the hospital for cardiac testing or to not be admitted and instead follow up with their primary care doctor or a cardiologist within 3 days to determine what further cardiac work-up might be warranted.

Upon reviewing data obtained from 898 patient diaries regarding use of health care services, as well as from billing data from the medical centers, the researchers found no statistically significant difference between patients who used the CPC tool and those treated under usual care with regard to hospital readmission rates, length of stay in the ED, repeat ED visits, or clinic visits. However, at the 45-day follow-up mark, those in the CPC group had undergone fewer tests and cardiac imaging studies (decrease of 125.6 tests/100 patients; 95% confidence interval, 29.3-221.6).

Bottom line: Shared decision making between providers and patients with low cardiac risk factors that used the Chest Pain Choice tool decreased some health care utilization without worsening outcomes.

Citation: Schaffer JT et al. Impact of a shared decision-making intervention on health care utilization: A secondary analysis of the Chest Pain Choice multicenter randomized trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar;25(3):293-300.

Dr. Ally is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.

The 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association

STOCKHOLM—Follow-up data suggest that ropeginterferon alfa-2b (ropeg) provides an advantage over hydroxyurea (HU) for patients with polycythemia vera (PV), regardless of their age.

Two-year results from an extension study have shown that, compared to HU, ropeg produces higher rates of complete hematologic response (CHR) and molecular response (MR) in PV patients, including patients age 60 and older.

Additionally, rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar between the ropeg and HU arms.

“In all, I think these data suggest that ropeginterferon alfa-2b provides a valuable, efficacious, and safe new treatment option for PV patients of all ages, including those older than 60 years,” said Jean-Jacques Kiladjian, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot in Paris, France.

Dr Kiladjian presented these results at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S132.

The research was sponsored by AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG.

Dr Kiladjian presented data from CONTINUATION-PV, an extension trial of PROUD-PV. Results from PROUD-PV were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

PROUD-PV enrolled 254 patients who were treatment-naive or pretreated with HU. They were randomized to receive ropeg (n=127) or HU (n=127).

CONTINUATION-PV included 95 of the patients on ropeg and 76 of the patients on HU. Dr Kiladjian noted that baseline characteristics were similar between these groups.

CHR

At 24 months, the rate of CHR was 70.5% (67/95) in the ropeg arm and 49.3% (33/67) in the HU arm (RR=1.42, P<0.05).

In patients younger than 60, the rate of CHR was 77.6% in the ropeg arm and 55.9% in the HU arm. In patients age 60 and older, rates of CHR were 63% and 42.4%, respectively.

Dr Kiladjian noted that CHR rates increased over time in ropeg recipients. In PROUD-PV, CHR rates were similar between the ropeg and HU arms at 12 months. However, at 24 months, the CHR rates were higher in ropeg recipients.

Ropeg recipients were also more likely than HU recipients to maintain their CHR from the first occurrence to 24 months.

In patients younger than 60, 49% of the ropeg arm and 17.9% of the HU arm maintained a CHR (P<0.001). In patients age 60 and older, rates of CHR maintenance were 37% and 18.9%, respectively.

MR and JAK2V617F allele burden

Rates of MR at 24 months were 68.1% (64/94) in the ropeg arm and 34.7% (26/75) in the HU arm (RR=1.85, P<0.01).

In patients younger than 60, the rate of MR was 77.1% in the ropeg arm and 33.3% in the HU arm (P<0.001). In patients age 60 and older, MR rates were 58.7% and 36.1%, respectively.

For patients younger than 60, the reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden at 12 months was 29.9% in the ropeg arm and 42.3% in the HU arm. At 24 months, the reductions were 54.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P<0.001).

For patients 60 and older, the reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden at 12 months was 25.2% in the ropeg arm and 37.5% in the HU arm. At 24 months, the reductions were 35.1% and 18.4%, respectively.

Safety          

“I think an important point here is the safety because we assume that [ropeg] is not well tolerated in elderly patients,” Dr Kiladjian said. “So what are the results in this prospective, controlled trial? There was a comparable number of adverse events and serious adverse events in the treatment arms, irrespective of age.”

Dr Kiladjian also pointed out that the number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was comparable between the treatment arms for younger patients, and there was a trend toward a lower number of ADRs in the ropeg arm for the patients age 60 and older.

The 4 serious ADRs in the HU patients age 60 and older were acute leukemia, anemia, leukopenia, and granulocytopenia.

The 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association

STOCKHOLM—Follow-up data suggest that ropeginterferon alfa-2b (ropeg) provides an advantage over hydroxyurea (HU) for patients with polycythemia vera (PV), regardless of their age.

Two-year results from an extension study have shown that, compared to HU, ropeg produces higher rates of complete hematologic response (CHR) and molecular response (MR) in PV patients, including patients age 60 and older.

Additionally, rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar between the ropeg and HU arms.

“In all, I think these data suggest that ropeginterferon alfa-2b provides a valuable, efficacious, and safe new treatment option for PV patients of all ages, including those older than 60 years,” said Jean-Jacques Kiladjian, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot in Paris, France.

Dr Kiladjian presented these results at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S132.

The research was sponsored by AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG.

Dr Kiladjian presented data from CONTINUATION-PV, an extension trial of PROUD-PV. Results from PROUD-PV were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

PROUD-PV enrolled 254 patients who were treatment-naive or pretreated with HU. They were randomized to receive ropeg (n=127) or HU (n=127).

CONTINUATION-PV included 95 of the patients on ropeg and 76 of the patients on HU. Dr Kiladjian noted that baseline characteristics were similar between these groups.

CHR

At 24 months, the rate of CHR was 70.5% (67/95) in the ropeg arm and 49.3% (33/67) in the HU arm (RR=1.42, P<0.05).

In patients younger than 60, the rate of CHR was 77.6% in the ropeg arm and 55.9% in the HU arm. In patients age 60 and older, rates of CHR were 63% and 42.4%, respectively.

Dr Kiladjian noted that CHR rates increased over time in ropeg recipients. In PROUD-PV, CHR rates were similar between the ropeg and HU arms at 12 months. However, at 24 months, the CHR rates were higher in ropeg recipients.

Ropeg recipients were also more likely than HU recipients to maintain their CHR from the first occurrence to 24 months.

In patients younger than 60, 49% of the ropeg arm and 17.9% of the HU arm maintained a CHR (P<0.001). In patients age 60 and older, rates of CHR maintenance were 37% and 18.9%, respectively.

MR and JAK2V617F allele burden

Rates of MR at 24 months were 68.1% (64/94) in the ropeg arm and 34.7% (26/75) in the HU arm (RR=1.85, P<0.01).

In patients younger than 60, the rate of MR was 77.1% in the ropeg arm and 33.3% in the HU arm (P<0.001). In patients age 60 and older, MR rates were 58.7% and 36.1%, respectively.

For patients younger than 60, the reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden at 12 months was 29.9% in the ropeg arm and 42.3% in the HU arm. At 24 months, the reductions were 54.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P<0.001).

For patients 60 and older, the reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden at 12 months was 25.2% in the ropeg arm and 37.5% in the HU arm. At 24 months, the reductions were 35.1% and 18.4%, respectively.

Safety          

“I think an important point here is the safety because we assume that [ropeg] is not well tolerated in elderly patients,” Dr Kiladjian said. “So what are the results in this prospective, controlled trial? There was a comparable number of adverse events and serious adverse events in the treatment arms, irrespective of age.”

Dr Kiladjian also pointed out that the number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was comparable between the treatment arms for younger patients, and there was a trend toward a lower number of ADRs in the ropeg arm for the patients age 60 and older.

The 4 serious ADRs in the HU patients age 60 and older were acute leukemia, anemia, leukopenia, and granulocytopenia.

The 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association

STOCKHOLM—Follow-up data suggest that ropeginterferon alfa-2b (ropeg) provides an advantage over hydroxyurea (HU) for patients with polycythemia vera (PV), regardless of their age.

Two-year results from an extension study have shown that, compared to HU, ropeg produces higher rates of complete hematologic response (CHR) and molecular response (MR) in PV patients, including patients age 60 and older.

Additionally, rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar between the ropeg and HU arms.

“In all, I think these data suggest that ropeginterferon alfa-2b provides a valuable, efficacious, and safe new treatment option for PV patients of all ages, including those older than 60 years,” said Jean-Jacques Kiladjian, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot in Paris, France.

Dr Kiladjian presented these results at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S132.

The research was sponsored by AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG.

Dr Kiladjian presented data from CONTINUATION-PV, an extension trial of PROUD-PV. Results from PROUD-PV were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

PROUD-PV enrolled 254 patients who were treatment-naive or pretreated with HU. They were randomized to receive ropeg (n=127) or HU (n=127).

CONTINUATION-PV included 95 of the patients on ropeg and 76 of the patients on HU. Dr Kiladjian noted that baseline characteristics were similar between these groups.

CHR

At 24 months, the rate of CHR was 70.5% (67/95) in the ropeg arm and 49.3% (33/67) in the HU arm (RR=1.42, P<0.05).

In patients younger than 60, the rate of CHR was 77.6% in the ropeg arm and 55.9% in the HU arm. In patients age 60 and older, rates of CHR were 63% and 42.4%, respectively.

Dr Kiladjian noted that CHR rates increased over time in ropeg recipients. In PROUD-PV, CHR rates were similar between the ropeg and HU arms at 12 months. However, at 24 months, the CHR rates were higher in ropeg recipients.

Ropeg recipients were also more likely than HU recipients to maintain their CHR from the first occurrence to 24 months.

In patients younger than 60, 49% of the ropeg arm and 17.9% of the HU arm maintained a CHR (P<0.001). In patients age 60 and older, rates of CHR maintenance were 37% and 18.9%, respectively.

MR and JAK2V617F allele burden

Rates of MR at 24 months were 68.1% (64/94) in the ropeg arm and 34.7% (26/75) in the HU arm (RR=1.85, P<0.01).

In patients younger than 60, the rate of MR was 77.1% in the ropeg arm and 33.3% in the HU arm (P<0.001). In patients age 60 and older, MR rates were 58.7% and 36.1%, respectively.

For patients younger than 60, the reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden at 12 months was 29.9% in the ropeg arm and 42.3% in the HU arm. At 24 months, the reductions were 54.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P<0.001).

For patients 60 and older, the reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden at 12 months was 25.2% in the ropeg arm and 37.5% in the HU arm. At 24 months, the reductions were 35.1% and 18.4%, respectively.

Safety          

“I think an important point here is the safety because we assume that [ropeg] is not well tolerated in elderly patients,” Dr Kiladjian said. “So what are the results in this prospective, controlled trial? There was a comparable number of adverse events and serious adverse events in the treatment arms, irrespective of age.”

Dr Kiladjian also pointed out that the number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was comparable between the treatment arms for younger patients, and there was a trend toward a lower number of ADRs in the ropeg arm for the patients age 60 and older.

The 4 serious ADRs in the HU patients age 60 and older were acute leukemia, anemia, leukopenia, and granulocytopenia.

Photo by Bill Branson

A survey of more than 15,000 childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) revealed that many were unconcerned about their risk of health problems.

Thirty-one percent of CCSs said they were “not at all” or “not very” concerned about their future health, and 40% said they were “not at all” or “not very” concerned about developing new cancers.

Researchers say it isn’t clear what’s driving this lack of concern, but it is possible that some CCSs don’t know they have an increased risk of new malignancies and other health problems.

“Other possibilities include that some survivors may actually be aware of their increased risks and choose not to be concerned, or it may even be that some survivors are, indeed, following health guidelines and working with healthcare providers, leading to their lack of concern,” said Todd Gibson, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Dr Gibson and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Cancer.

The researchers analyzed data on 15,620 CCSs and 3991 of their siblings who did not have a history of cancer. The data came from questionnaires administered to participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

At baseline, the median time from CCSs’ cancer diagnosis was 17 years (interquartile range [IQR], 14-21). Their median age at baseline was 26 (IQR, 22-31 years), and the siblings’ median age was 29 (IQR, 24-35).

When respondents were asked about their level of concern regarding their future health, the answers were as follows:

• 12% of both CCSs and siblings were “not at all concerned”
• 18.7% of CCSs and 21.6% of siblings were “not very concerned”
• 23.2% of CCSs and 24.1% of siblings were “concerned”
• 21.4% of CCSs and 22.2% of siblings were “somewhat concerned”
• 24.8% of CCSs and 20.1% of siblings were “very concerned.”

When respondents were asked to rate their level of concern about developing a new cancer, the answers were as follows:

• 17.2% of CCSs and 16.3% of siblings were “not at all concerned”
• 22.8% of CCSs and 22.2% of siblings were “not very concerned”
• 21.1% of CCSs and 25.1% of siblings were “concerned”
• 18.3% of CCSs and 18.4% of siblings were “somewhat concerned”
• 20.6% of CCSs and 18.1% of siblings were “very concerned.”

When the researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and decade of diagnosis, CCSs were only slightly more likely than siblings to report concern about future health (relative risk, 1.12) or subsequent cancer (relative risk, 1.02).

“That similarity [between CCS and sibling answers] was really the major surprise in our findings,” Dr Gibson said. “Despite the fact that survivors have such a greatly increased risk of both second cancers and other health problems, their perception of risk was not always commensurate with their actual risk.”

The researchers did find that CCSs were more likely to report concern about future health or developing cancer if they were female, non-Hispanic black or Hispanic, older, identified as having clinical anxiety, or had already experienced a grade 3/4 chronic condition or subsequent cancer.

However, it isn’t clear why some CCSs are concerned about their future health and others are not.

“At this point, we can only speculate, but the most obvious reason [for lack of concern] would be that survivors may not fully understand their risks,” Dr Gibson said. “We do know from prior studies that not all survivors are fully aware of the specific treatments they received and how those might increase their risks of late effects.”

“If, however, survivors are aware but not motivated or sufficiently aroused to be concerned, then more motivational education will have to be developed. In any case, these findings offer a teaching point that we can use to emphasize to all survivors that they need to understand their risks.”

Photo by Bill Branson

A survey of more than 15,000 childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) revealed that many were unconcerned about their risk of health problems.

Thirty-one percent of CCSs said they were “not at all” or “not very” concerned about their future health, and 40% said they were “not at all” or “not very” concerned about developing new cancers.

Researchers say it isn’t clear what’s driving this lack of concern, but it is possible that some CCSs don’t know they have an increased risk of new malignancies and other health problems.

“Other possibilities include that some survivors may actually be aware of their increased risks and choose not to be concerned, or it may even be that some survivors are, indeed, following health guidelines and working with healthcare providers, leading to their lack of concern,” said Todd Gibson, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Dr Gibson and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Cancer.

The researchers analyzed data on 15,620 CCSs and 3991 of their siblings who did not have a history of cancer. The data came from questionnaires administered to participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

At baseline, the median time from CCSs’ cancer diagnosis was 17 years (interquartile range [IQR], 14-21). Their median age at baseline was 26 (IQR, 22-31 years), and the siblings’ median age was 29 (IQR, 24-35).

When respondents were asked about their level of concern regarding their future health, the answers were as follows:

• 12% of both CCSs and siblings were “not at all concerned”
• 18.7% of CCSs and 21.6% of siblings were “not very concerned”
• 23.2% of CCSs and 24.1% of siblings were “concerned”
• 21.4% of CCSs and 22.2% of siblings were “somewhat concerned”
• 24.8% of CCSs and 20.1% of siblings were “very concerned.”

When respondents were asked to rate their level of concern about developing a new cancer, the answers were as follows:

• 17.2% of CCSs and 16.3% of siblings were “not at all concerned”
• 22.8% of CCSs and 22.2% of siblings were “not very concerned”
• 21.1% of CCSs and 25.1% of siblings were “concerned”
• 18.3% of CCSs and 18.4% of siblings were “somewhat concerned”
• 20.6% of CCSs and 18.1% of siblings were “very concerned.”

When the researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and decade of diagnosis, CCSs were only slightly more likely than siblings to report concern about future health (relative risk, 1.12) or subsequent cancer (relative risk, 1.02).

“That similarity [between CCS and sibling answers] was really the major surprise in our findings,” Dr Gibson said. “Despite the fact that survivors have such a greatly increased risk of both second cancers and other health problems, their perception of risk was not always commensurate with their actual risk.”

The researchers did find that CCSs were more likely to report concern about future health or developing cancer if they were female, non-Hispanic black or Hispanic, older, identified as having clinical anxiety, or had already experienced a grade 3/4 chronic condition or subsequent cancer.

However, it isn’t clear why some CCSs are concerned about their future health and others are not.

“At this point, we can only speculate, but the most obvious reason [for lack of concern] would be that survivors may not fully understand their risks,” Dr Gibson said. “We do know from prior studies that not all survivors are fully aware of the specific treatments they received and how those might increase their risks of late effects.”

“If, however, survivors are aware but not motivated or sufficiently aroused to be concerned, then more motivational education will have to be developed. In any case, these findings offer a teaching point that we can use to emphasize to all survivors that they need to understand their risks.”

Photo by Bill Branson

A survey of more than 15,000 childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) revealed that many were unconcerned about their risk of health problems.

Thirty-one percent of CCSs said they were “not at all” or “not very” concerned about their future health, and 40% said they were “not at all” or “not very” concerned about developing new cancers.

Researchers say it isn’t clear what’s driving this lack of concern, but it is possible that some CCSs don’t know they have an increased risk of new malignancies and other health problems.

“Other possibilities include that some survivors may actually be aware of their increased risks and choose not to be concerned, or it may even be that some survivors are, indeed, following health guidelines and working with healthcare providers, leading to their lack of concern,” said Todd Gibson, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Dr Gibson and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Cancer.

The researchers analyzed data on 15,620 CCSs and 3991 of their siblings who did not have a history of cancer. The data came from questionnaires administered to participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

At baseline, the median time from CCSs’ cancer diagnosis was 17 years (interquartile range [IQR], 14-21). Their median age at baseline was 26 (IQR, 22-31 years), and the siblings’ median age was 29 (IQR, 24-35).

When respondents were asked about their level of concern regarding their future health, the answers were as follows:

• 12% of both CCSs and siblings were “not at all concerned”
• 18.7% of CCSs and 21.6% of siblings were “not very concerned”
• 23.2% of CCSs and 24.1% of siblings were “concerned”
• 21.4% of CCSs and 22.2% of siblings were “somewhat concerned”
• 24.8% of CCSs and 20.1% of siblings were “very concerned.”

When respondents were asked to rate their level of concern about developing a new cancer, the answers were as follows:

• 17.2% of CCSs and 16.3% of siblings were “not at all concerned”
• 22.8% of CCSs and 22.2% of siblings were “not very concerned”
• 21.1% of CCSs and 25.1% of siblings were “concerned”
• 18.3% of CCSs and 18.4% of siblings were “somewhat concerned”
• 20.6% of CCSs and 18.1% of siblings were “very concerned.”

When the researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and decade of diagnosis, CCSs were only slightly more likely than siblings to report concern about future health (relative risk, 1.12) or subsequent cancer (relative risk, 1.02).

“That similarity [between CCS and sibling answers] was really the major surprise in our findings,” Dr Gibson said. “Despite the fact that survivors have such a greatly increased risk of both second cancers and other health problems, their perception of risk was not always commensurate with their actual risk.”

The researchers did find that CCSs were more likely to report concern about future health or developing cancer if they were female, non-Hispanic black or Hispanic, older, identified as having clinical anxiety, or had already experienced a grade 3/4 chronic condition or subsequent cancer.

However, it isn’t clear why some CCSs are concerned about their future health and others are not.

“At this point, we can only speculate, but the most obvious reason [for lack of concern] would be that survivors may not fully understand their risks,” Dr Gibson said. “We do know from prior studies that not all survivors are fully aware of the specific treatments they received and how those might increase their risks of late effects.”

“If, however, survivors are aware but not motivated or sufficiently aroused to be concerned, then more motivational education will have to be developed. In any case, these findings offer a teaching point that we can use to emphasize to all survivors that they need to understand their risks.”

Image by Lance Liotta

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a new drug application (NDA) for glasdegib, an oral SMO inhibitor.

With this NDA, Pfizer is seeking approval for glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) as a treatment for adults with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the NDA for glasdegib by December 2018.

The NDA is supported by results from the phase 2 BRIGHT 1003 study. Results from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The trial was a comparison of glasdegib plus LDAC (n=88) to LDAC alone (n=44) in patients with previously untreated AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Results demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival with glasdegib. The median overall survival was 8.8 months in the glasdegib arm and 4.9 months in the LDAC-alone arm.

This difference represented a 49.9% reduction in the risk of death for patients treated with glasdegib plus LDAC (hazard ratio=0.501; 95% CI: 0.334, 0.752; one-sided P-value=0.0003).

The most frequent adverse events—occurring in at least 30% of patients in the glasdegib arm and LDAC-alone arm, respectively—were anemia (45% vs 42%), febrile neutropenia (36% vs 27%), nausea (36% vs 12%), decreased appetite (32% vs 12%), fatigue (31% vs 20%), and thrombocytopenia (30% vs 27%).

The most frequently reported serious adverse events—occurring in at least 15%  of patients in the glasdegib and LDAC-alone arms, respectively—were febrile neutropenia (29% vs 20%) and pneumonia (21% vs 17%).

A phase 3 trial of glasdegib in AML began enrolling earlier this year. In this trial (BRIGHT AML 1019; NCT03416179), researchers are evaluating glasdegib plus intensive or non-intensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed AML.

Image by Lance Liotta

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a new drug application (NDA) for glasdegib, an oral SMO inhibitor.

With this NDA, Pfizer is seeking approval for glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) as a treatment for adults with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the NDA for glasdegib by December 2018.

The NDA is supported by results from the phase 2 BRIGHT 1003 study. Results from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The trial was a comparison of glasdegib plus LDAC (n=88) to LDAC alone (n=44) in patients with previously untreated AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Results demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival with glasdegib. The median overall survival was 8.8 months in the glasdegib arm and 4.9 months in the LDAC-alone arm.

This difference represented a 49.9% reduction in the risk of death for patients treated with glasdegib plus LDAC (hazard ratio=0.501; 95% CI: 0.334, 0.752; one-sided P-value=0.0003).

The most frequent adverse events—occurring in at least 30% of patients in the glasdegib arm and LDAC-alone arm, respectively—were anemia (45% vs 42%), febrile neutropenia (36% vs 27%), nausea (36% vs 12%), decreased appetite (32% vs 12%), fatigue (31% vs 20%), and thrombocytopenia (30% vs 27%).

The most frequently reported serious adverse events—occurring in at least 15%  of patients in the glasdegib and LDAC-alone arms, respectively—were febrile neutropenia (29% vs 20%) and pneumonia (21% vs 17%).

A phase 3 trial of glasdegib in AML began enrolling earlier this year. In this trial (BRIGHT AML 1019; NCT03416179), researchers are evaluating glasdegib plus intensive or non-intensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed AML.

Image by Lance Liotta

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a new drug application (NDA) for glasdegib, an oral SMO inhibitor.

With this NDA, Pfizer is seeking approval for glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) as a treatment for adults with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the NDA for glasdegib by December 2018.

The NDA is supported by results from the phase 2 BRIGHT 1003 study. Results from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The trial was a comparison of glasdegib plus LDAC (n=88) to LDAC alone (n=44) in patients with previously untreated AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Results demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival with glasdegib. The median overall survival was 8.8 months in the glasdegib arm and 4.9 months in the LDAC-alone arm.

This difference represented a 49.9% reduction in the risk of death for patients treated with glasdegib plus LDAC (hazard ratio=0.501; 95% CI: 0.334, 0.752; one-sided P-value=0.0003).

The most frequent adverse events—occurring in at least 30% of patients in the glasdegib arm and LDAC-alone arm, respectively—were anemia (45% vs 42%), febrile neutropenia (36% vs 27%), nausea (36% vs 12%), decreased appetite (32% vs 12%), fatigue (31% vs 20%), and thrombocytopenia (30% vs 27%).

The most frequently reported serious adverse events—occurring in at least 15%  of patients in the glasdegib and LDAC-alone arms, respectively—were febrile neutropenia (29% vs 20%) and pneumonia (21% vs 17%).

A phase 3 trial of glasdegib in AML began enrolling earlier this year. In this trial (BRIGHT AML 1019; NCT03416179), researchers are evaluating glasdegib plus intensive or non-intensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed AML.

The FP thought the flat lesion (arrow) might be a nevus sebaceous (NS) and that the new area could be a malignant transformation.

The FP explained that a biopsy would be needed to learn more about the lesion. He explained that he would remove the area that was friable and bleeding along with part of the original flat lesion. After injecting the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine, a shave biopsy was performed using a DermaBlade. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The bleeding was stopped using aluminum chloride in water and some electrosurgery. The pathology results revealed syringocystadenoma papilliferum growing within an NS. This benign tumor is rare, but may develop within an NS.

The FP reassured the family that there was no skin cancer. The FP also referred the patient for full removal of the NS and any remnant of the syringocystadenoma papilliferum to avoid future growth and prevent additional bleeding.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Epidermal nevus and nevus sebaceous. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:958-962.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP thought the flat lesion (arrow) might be a nevus sebaceous (NS) and that the new area could be a malignant transformation.

The FP explained that a biopsy would be needed to learn more about the lesion. He explained that he would remove the area that was friable and bleeding along with part of the original flat lesion. After injecting the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine, a shave biopsy was performed using a DermaBlade. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The bleeding was stopped using aluminum chloride in water and some electrosurgery. The pathology results revealed syringocystadenoma papilliferum growing within an NS. This benign tumor is rare, but may develop within an NS.

The FP reassured the family that there was no skin cancer. The FP also referred the patient for full removal of the NS and any remnant of the syringocystadenoma papilliferum to avoid future growth and prevent additional bleeding.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Epidermal nevus and nevus sebaceous. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:958-962.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP thought the flat lesion (arrow) might be a nevus sebaceous (NS) and that the new area could be a malignant transformation.

The FP explained that a biopsy would be needed to learn more about the lesion. He explained that he would remove the area that was friable and bleeding along with part of the original flat lesion. After injecting the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine, a shave biopsy was performed using a DermaBlade. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The bleeding was stopped using aluminum chloride in water and some electrosurgery. The pathology results revealed syringocystadenoma papilliferum growing within an NS. This benign tumor is rare, but may develop within an NS.

The FP reassured the family that there was no skin cancer. The FP also referred the patient for full removal of the NS and any remnant of the syringocystadenoma papilliferum to avoid future growth and prevent additional bleeding.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Epidermal nevus and nevus sebaceous. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:958-962.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

Clinical question: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, does hydrocortisone reduce 90-day mortality?

Background: Septic shock is associated with a significant mortality risk, and there is no proven pharmacologic treatment other than fluids, vasopressors, and antimicrobials. Prior randomized, controlled trials have resulted in mixed outcomes, and meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines also have not provided consistent guidance.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.

Setting: Medical centers in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom.

Synopsis: Over a 4-year period from 2013 to 2017, 3,658 patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation were randomized to receive either a continuous infusion of 200 mg/day of hydrocortisone for 7 days or placebo. The primary outcome, death within 90 days, occurred in 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 526 patients (28.8%) in the placebo group (P = .50).

Dr. Huang is associate chief of the division of hospital medicine at UC San Diego Health and an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Clinical question: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, does hydrocortisone reduce 90-day mortality?

Background: Septic shock is associated with a significant mortality risk, and there is no proven pharmacologic treatment other than fluids, vasopressors, and antimicrobials. Prior randomized, controlled trials have resulted in mixed outcomes, and meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines also have not provided consistent guidance.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.

Setting: Medical centers in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom.

Synopsis: Over a 4-year period from 2013 to 2017, 3,658 patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation were randomized to receive either a continuous infusion of 200 mg/day of hydrocortisone for 7 days or placebo. The primary outcome, death within 90 days, occurred in 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 526 patients (28.8%) in the placebo group (P = .50).

Dr. Huang is associate chief of the division of hospital medicine at UC San Diego Health and an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Clinical question: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, does hydrocortisone reduce 90-day mortality?

Background: Septic shock is associated with a significant mortality risk, and there is no proven pharmacologic treatment other than fluids, vasopressors, and antimicrobials. Prior randomized, controlled trials have resulted in mixed outcomes, and meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines also have not provided consistent guidance.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.

Setting: Medical centers in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom.

Synopsis: Over a 4-year period from 2013 to 2017, 3,658 patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation were randomized to receive either a continuous infusion of 200 mg/day of hydrocortisone for 7 days or placebo. The primary outcome, death within 90 days, occurred in 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 526 patients (28.8%) in the placebo group (P = .50).

Dr. Huang is associate chief of the division of hospital medicine at UC San Diego Health and an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination therapy of encorafenib (Braftovi) and binimetinib (Mektovi) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations; the FDA also has approved the THxID BRAF Kit as a companion diagnostic for this combination therapy.

The approval was based on results from the randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter COLUMBUS trial, which included 517 patients. Progression-free survival, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was the major efficacy measure; the median progression-free survival was 14.9 months in the encorafenib/binimetinib combination arm versus 7.3 months in the vemurafenib (Zelboraf) monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and arthralgia were the most common adverse reactions. Discontinuation of therapy from adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients receiving the combination, the FDA said in a press statement.

The full prescribing information for encorafenib and binimetinib can be found on the FDA website.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination therapy of encorafenib (Braftovi) and binimetinib (Mektovi) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations; the FDA also has approved the THxID BRAF Kit as a companion diagnostic for this combination therapy.

The approval was based on results from the randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter COLUMBUS trial, which included 517 patients. Progression-free survival, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was the major efficacy measure; the median progression-free survival was 14.9 months in the encorafenib/binimetinib combination arm versus 7.3 months in the vemurafenib (Zelboraf) monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and arthralgia were the most common adverse reactions. Discontinuation of therapy from adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients receiving the combination, the FDA said in a press statement.

The full prescribing information for encorafenib and binimetinib can be found on the FDA website.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination therapy of encorafenib (Braftovi) and binimetinib (Mektovi) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations; the FDA also has approved the THxID BRAF Kit as a companion diagnostic for this combination therapy.

The approval was based on results from the randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter COLUMBUS trial, which included 517 patients. Progression-free survival, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was the major efficacy measure; the median progression-free survival was 14.9 months in the encorafenib/binimetinib combination arm versus 7.3 months in the vemurafenib (Zelboraf) monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and arthralgia were the most common adverse reactions. Discontinuation of therapy from adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients receiving the combination, the FDA said in a press statement.

The full prescribing information for encorafenib and binimetinib can be found on the FDA website.






 

SAN DIEGO – Between 1999 and 2015, heroin use increased among high school students who live in Milwaukee, Chicago, and New York – trends that accompanied a rise in injection drug use in those cities.

“This implies that a subset of these students who are using heroin are probably injecting heroin as well; otherwise these trends wouldn’t be mirroring each other so well,” lead study author Sherri-Chanelle Brighthaupt said in an interview at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from a trend analysis of heroin use and injection drug use in nine urban U.S. school districts drawn from Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data from 1999-2015. The analysis was conducted using data from New York City, three Florida counties (Broward, Orange, and Miami-Dade), Dallas, Chicago, Milwaukee, and two California cities (San Diego and San Bernardino). “This is one of the first studies we know of that’s looking at adolescent heroin and injection drug use at the local level,” said Ms. Brighthaupt, a third-year doctoral student in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “National estimates may mask variation at the local level.”

The sample population studied included local-level YRBS responses from 260,952 students in grades 9-12. All responses were weighted by sex, grade, and race/ethnicity, and the researchers used logistic regression models to test for liner and quadratic trends in the pooled sample and in each city. Between 1999 and 2015, lifetime heroin use among this population increased significantly, from 2.8% to 7.4% in Milwaukee (P = .0001), from 3.1% to 4.1% in Chicago (P = .02), and from 1% to 2.5% in New York (P less than .0001). However, during the same time frame, heroin use decreased in San Bernardino from 4.6% to 1.6% (P = .0001).

The researchers also found that between 1999 and 2015, lifetime injection drug use in this age group increased significantly, from 0.8% to 2.2% in New York (P less than .0001) and from 2.5% to 2.7% in Chicago (P = .05). During the same time period, lifetime injection drug use decreased in San Bernardino, (from 2.5% to 1.9%; P = .05) and in Dallas after peaking in 2007 (from 3.6% to 1%; P = .02).

“The take-home message is to look locally,” Ms. Brighthaupt said. “Some cities may have a historically entrenched culture of heroin use, and prevention and intervention efforts should be tailored to the unique social and cultural context of the geographic region.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ms. Brighthaupt reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Between 1999 and 2015, heroin use increased among high school students who live in Milwaukee, Chicago, and New York – trends that accompanied a rise in injection drug use in those cities.

“This implies that a subset of these students who are using heroin are probably injecting heroin as well; otherwise these trends wouldn’t be mirroring each other so well,” lead study author Sherri-Chanelle Brighthaupt said in an interview at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from a trend analysis of heroin use and injection drug use in nine urban U.S. school districts drawn from Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data from 1999-2015. The analysis was conducted using data from New York City, three Florida counties (Broward, Orange, and Miami-Dade), Dallas, Chicago, Milwaukee, and two California cities (San Diego and San Bernardino). “This is one of the first studies we know of that’s looking at adolescent heroin and injection drug use at the local level,” said Ms. Brighthaupt, a third-year doctoral student in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “National estimates may mask variation at the local level.”

The sample population studied included local-level YRBS responses from 260,952 students in grades 9-12. All responses were weighted by sex, grade, and race/ethnicity, and the researchers used logistic regression models to test for liner and quadratic trends in the pooled sample and in each city. Between 1999 and 2015, lifetime heroin use among this population increased significantly, from 2.8% to 7.4% in Milwaukee (P = .0001), from 3.1% to 4.1% in Chicago (P = .02), and from 1% to 2.5% in New York (P less than .0001). However, during the same time frame, heroin use decreased in San Bernardino from 4.6% to 1.6% (P = .0001).

The researchers also found that between 1999 and 2015, lifetime injection drug use in this age group increased significantly, from 0.8% to 2.2% in New York (P less than .0001) and from 2.5% to 2.7% in Chicago (P = .05). During the same time period, lifetime injection drug use decreased in San Bernardino, (from 2.5% to 1.9%; P = .05) and in Dallas after peaking in 2007 (from 3.6% to 1%; P = .02).

“The take-home message is to look locally,” Ms. Brighthaupt said. “Some cities may have a historically entrenched culture of heroin use, and prevention and intervention efforts should be tailored to the unique social and cultural context of the geographic region.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ms. Brighthaupt reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Between 1999 and 2015, heroin use increased among high school students who live in Milwaukee, Chicago, and New York – trends that accompanied a rise in injection drug use in those cities.

“This implies that a subset of these students who are using heroin are probably injecting heroin as well; otherwise these trends wouldn’t be mirroring each other so well,” lead study author Sherri-Chanelle Brighthaupt said in an interview at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from a trend analysis of heroin use and injection drug use in nine urban U.S. school districts drawn from Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data from 1999-2015. The analysis was conducted using data from New York City, three Florida counties (Broward, Orange, and Miami-Dade), Dallas, Chicago, Milwaukee, and two California cities (San Diego and San Bernardino). “This is one of the first studies we know of that’s looking at adolescent heroin and injection drug use at the local level,” said Ms. Brighthaupt, a third-year doctoral student in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “National estimates may mask variation at the local level.”

The sample population studied included local-level YRBS responses from 260,952 students in grades 9-12. All responses were weighted by sex, grade, and race/ethnicity, and the researchers used logistic regression models to test for liner and quadratic trends in the pooled sample and in each city. Between 1999 and 2015, lifetime heroin use among this population increased significantly, from 2.8% to 7.4% in Milwaukee (P = .0001), from 3.1% to 4.1% in Chicago (P = .02), and from 1% to 2.5% in New York (P less than .0001). However, during the same time frame, heroin use decreased in San Bernardino from 4.6% to 1.6% (P = .0001).

The researchers also found that between 1999 and 2015, lifetime injection drug use in this age group increased significantly, from 0.8% to 2.2% in New York (P less than .0001) and from 2.5% to 2.7% in Chicago (P = .05). During the same time period, lifetime injection drug use decreased in San Bernardino, (from 2.5% to 1.9%; P = .05) and in Dallas after peaking in 2007 (from 3.6% to 1%; P = .02).

“The take-home message is to look locally,” Ms. Brighthaupt said. “Some cities may have a historically entrenched culture of heroin use, and prevention and intervention efforts should be tailored to the unique social and cultural context of the geographic region.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ms. Brighthaupt reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy (BO) reduces the risk of future ovarian cancer in women who have BRCA1 gene mutations. Women in this high-risk population may be reluctant, however, to use menopausal hormone therapy (HT) to mitigate the symptoms of surgical menopause because of concerns that it might elevate their risk of breast cancer.

To determine the relationship between HT use and BRCA1-associated breast cancer, Kotsopoulos and colleagues conducted a multicenter international cohort study. They prospectively followed women with BRCA1 mutations who had undergone BO and had intact breasts and no history of breast cancer.

Details of the study

The study included women who had a BRCA1 mutation and considered HT use following BO. Women were excluded from the analysis if they had a prior diagnosis of breast cancer or had BO prior to study enrollment. Study participants completed a questionnaire at baseline and a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years thereafter. The primary end point was invasive breast cancer.

Among 872 participating BRCA1 carriers, 43% (n = 377) used HT following BO. Mean duration of HT use following BO was 3.9 years, with 69% of users taking estrogen therapy alone (ET) and 19% using estrogen plus progestogen therapy (EPT). Those who used HT were younger at the time of BO compared with women who never used HT (mean age, 43.0 vs 48.4 years).

During follow-up (mean, 7.6 years; range, 0.4–22.1), invasive breast cancer was diagnosed in similar proportions of HT users and nonusers—10.3% and 10.7%, respectively (P = .86). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.62–1.52; P = .89) for ever use of any type of hormone therapy versus no use.

When the type of HT used was examined, the 10-year actuarial risk of breast cancer was significantly lower with ET than with EPT (12% vs 22%, respectively; P = .04); this difference was more marked for women who underwent BO prior to age 45 (9% vs 24%; P = .009).

Study strengths and weaknesses

This investigation had several strengths, including the large number of BRCA1 mutation carriers studied, the relatively long follow-up, and the detailed exposure data obtained.

The use of self-administered questionnaires for collecting information on lifetime HT use and breast cancer diagnoses may be a limitation. In addition, the HT route, regimen, and dose were not considered in the analysis, and the effect of intrauterine devices as progestational endometrial protection was not evaluated. Finally, the relationship between HT and breast cancer risk in women with intact ovaries was not evaluated.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@mdedge.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy (BO) reduces the risk of future ovarian cancer in women who have BRCA1 gene mutations. Women in this high-risk population may be reluctant, however, to use menopausal hormone therapy (HT) to mitigate the symptoms of surgical menopause because of concerns that it might elevate their risk of breast cancer.

To determine the relationship between HT use and BRCA1-associated breast cancer, Kotsopoulos and colleagues conducted a multicenter international cohort study. They prospectively followed women with BRCA1 mutations who had undergone BO and had intact breasts and no history of breast cancer.

Details of the study

The study included women who had a BRCA1 mutation and considered HT use following BO. Women were excluded from the analysis if they had a prior diagnosis of breast cancer or had BO prior to study enrollment. Study participants completed a questionnaire at baseline and a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years thereafter. The primary end point was invasive breast cancer.

Among 872 participating BRCA1 carriers, 43% (n = 377) used HT following BO. Mean duration of HT use following BO was 3.9 years, with 69% of users taking estrogen therapy alone (ET) and 19% using estrogen plus progestogen therapy (EPT). Those who used HT were younger at the time of BO compared with women who never used HT (mean age, 43.0 vs 48.4 years).

During follow-up (mean, 7.6 years; range, 0.4–22.1), invasive breast cancer was diagnosed in similar proportions of HT users and nonusers—10.3% and 10.7%, respectively (P = .86). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.62–1.52; P = .89) for ever use of any type of hormone therapy versus no use.

When the type of HT used was examined, the 10-year actuarial risk of breast cancer was significantly lower with ET than with EPT (12% vs 22%, respectively; P = .04); this difference was more marked for women who underwent BO prior to age 45 (9% vs 24%; P = .009).

Study strengths and weaknesses

This investigation had several strengths, including the large number of BRCA1 mutation carriers studied, the relatively long follow-up, and the detailed exposure data obtained.

The use of self-administered questionnaires for collecting information on lifetime HT use and breast cancer diagnoses may be a limitation. In addition, the HT route, regimen, and dose were not considered in the analysis, and the effect of intrauterine devices as progestational endometrial protection was not evaluated. Finally, the relationship between HT and breast cancer risk in women with intact ovaries was not evaluated.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@mdedge.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy (BO) reduces the risk of future ovarian cancer in women who have BRCA1 gene mutations. Women in this high-risk population may be reluctant, however, to use menopausal hormone therapy (HT) to mitigate the symptoms of surgical menopause because of concerns that it might elevate their risk of breast cancer.

To determine the relationship between HT use and BRCA1-associated breast cancer, Kotsopoulos and colleagues conducted a multicenter international cohort study. They prospectively followed women with BRCA1 mutations who had undergone BO and had intact breasts and no history of breast cancer.

Details of the study

The study included women who had a BRCA1 mutation and considered HT use following BO. Women were excluded from the analysis if they had a prior diagnosis of breast cancer or had BO prior to study enrollment. Study participants completed a questionnaire at baseline and a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years thereafter. The primary end point was invasive breast cancer.

Among 872 participating BRCA1 carriers, 43% (n = 377) used HT following BO. Mean duration of HT use following BO was 3.9 years, with 69% of users taking estrogen therapy alone (ET) and 19% using estrogen plus progestogen therapy (EPT). Those who used HT were younger at the time of BO compared with women who never used HT (mean age, 43.0 vs 48.4 years).

During follow-up (mean, 7.6 years; range, 0.4–22.1), invasive breast cancer was diagnosed in similar proportions of HT users and nonusers—10.3% and 10.7%, respectively (P = .86). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.62–1.52; P = .89) for ever use of any type of hormone therapy versus no use.

When the type of HT used was examined, the 10-year actuarial risk of breast cancer was significantly lower with ET than with EPT (12% vs 22%, respectively; P = .04); this difference was more marked for women who underwent BO prior to age 45 (9% vs 24%; P = .009).

Study strengths and weaknesses

This investigation had several strengths, including the large number of BRCA1 mutation carriers studied, the relatively long follow-up, and the detailed exposure data obtained.

The use of self-administered questionnaires for collecting information on lifetime HT use and breast cancer diagnoses may be a limitation. In addition, the HT route, regimen, and dose were not considered in the analysis, and the effect of intrauterine devices as progestational endometrial protection was not evaluated. Finally, the relationship between HT and breast cancer risk in women with intact ovaries was not evaluated.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@mdedge.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.