MDedge ObGyn

Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 could have been avoided if obesity rates were lower, a new report says.

An analysis by the World Obesity Federation found that of the 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, almost 90% (2.2 million) were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

The report, released to coincide with World Obesity Day, calls for obesity to be recognized as a disease in its own right around the world, and for people with obesity to be included in priority lists for COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

“Overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from COVID-19, including the need for hospitalization, for intensive care and for mechanical ventilation,” the WOF notes in the report.

It adds that in countries where less than half the adult population is classified as overweight (body mass index > 25 mg/kg²), for example, Vietnam, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 is a small fraction – around one-tenth – of the level seen in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

And while it acknowledges that figures for COVID-19 deaths are affected by the age structure of national populations and a country’s relative wealth and reporting capacity, “our findings appear to be independent of these contributory factors. Furthermore, other studies have found that overweight remains a highly significant predictor of the need for COVID-19 health care after accounting for these other influences.”

As an example, based on the U.K. experience, where an estimated 36% of COVID-19 hospitalizations have been attributed to lack of physical activity and excess body weight, it can be suggested that up to a third of the costs – between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the longer period – might be attributable to these predisposing risks.

The report said the prevalence of obesity in the United Kingdom is expected to rise from 27.8% in 2016 to more than 35% by 2025.

Rachel Batterham, lead adviser on obesity at the Royal College of Physicians, commented: “The link between high levels of obesity and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. is indisputable, as is the urgent need to address the factors that lead so many people to be living with obesity.

“With 30% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.K. directly attributed to overweight and obesity, and three-quarters of all critically ill patients having overweight or obesity, the human and financial costs are high.”
 

Window of opportunity to prioritize obesity as a disease

WOF says that evolving evidence on the close association between COVID-19 and underlying obesity “provides a new urgency … for political and collective action.”

“Obesity is a disease that does not receive prioritization commensurate with its prevalence and impact, which is rising fastest in emerging economies. It is a gateway to many other noncommunicable diseases and mental-health illness and is now a major factor in COVID-19 complications and mortality.”

The WOF also shows that COVID-19 is not a special case, noting that several other respiratory viruses lead to more severe consequences in people living with excess bodyweight, giving good reasons to expect the next pandemic to have similar effects. “For these reasons we need to recognize overweight as a major risk factor for infectious diseases including respiratory viruses.”

“To prevent pandemic health crises in future requires action now: we call on all readers to support the World Obesity Federation’s call for stronger, more resilient economies that prioritize investment in people’s health.”

There is, it stresses, “a window of opportunity to advocate for, fund and implement these actions in all countries to ensure better, more resilient and sustainable health for all, “now and in our postCOVID-19 future.”

It proposes a ROOTS approach:

• Recognize that obesity is a disease in its own right.
• Obesity monitoring and surveillance must be enhanced.
• Obesity prevention strategies must be developed.
• Treatment of obesity.
• Systems-based approaches should be applied.

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

Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 could have been avoided if obesity rates were lower, a new report says.

An analysis by the World Obesity Federation found that of the 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, almost 90% (2.2 million) were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

The report, released to coincide with World Obesity Day, calls for obesity to be recognized as a disease in its own right around the world, and for people with obesity to be included in priority lists for COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

“Overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from COVID-19, including the need for hospitalization, for intensive care and for mechanical ventilation,” the WOF notes in the report.

It adds that in countries where less than half the adult population is classified as overweight (body mass index > 25 mg/kg²), for example, Vietnam, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 is a small fraction – around one-tenth – of the level seen in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

And while it acknowledges that figures for COVID-19 deaths are affected by the age structure of national populations and a country’s relative wealth and reporting capacity, “our findings appear to be independent of these contributory factors. Furthermore, other studies have found that overweight remains a highly significant predictor of the need for COVID-19 health care after accounting for these other influences.”

As an example, based on the U.K. experience, where an estimated 36% of COVID-19 hospitalizations have been attributed to lack of physical activity and excess body weight, it can be suggested that up to a third of the costs – between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the longer period – might be attributable to these predisposing risks.

The report said the prevalence of obesity in the United Kingdom is expected to rise from 27.8% in 2016 to more than 35% by 2025.

Rachel Batterham, lead adviser on obesity at the Royal College of Physicians, commented: “The link between high levels of obesity and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. is indisputable, as is the urgent need to address the factors that lead so many people to be living with obesity.

“With 30% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.K. directly attributed to overweight and obesity, and three-quarters of all critically ill patients having overweight or obesity, the human and financial costs are high.”
 

Window of opportunity to prioritize obesity as a disease

WOF says that evolving evidence on the close association between COVID-19 and underlying obesity “provides a new urgency … for political and collective action.”

“Obesity is a disease that does not receive prioritization commensurate with its prevalence and impact, which is rising fastest in emerging economies. It is a gateway to many other noncommunicable diseases and mental-health illness and is now a major factor in COVID-19 complications and mortality.”

The WOF also shows that COVID-19 is not a special case, noting that several other respiratory viruses lead to more severe consequences in people living with excess bodyweight, giving good reasons to expect the next pandemic to have similar effects. “For these reasons we need to recognize overweight as a major risk factor for infectious diseases including respiratory viruses.”

“To prevent pandemic health crises in future requires action now: we call on all readers to support the World Obesity Federation’s call for stronger, more resilient economies that prioritize investment in people’s health.”

There is, it stresses, “a window of opportunity to advocate for, fund and implement these actions in all countries to ensure better, more resilient and sustainable health for all, “now and in our postCOVID-19 future.”

It proposes a ROOTS approach:

• Recognize that obesity is a disease in its own right.
• Obesity monitoring and surveillance must be enhanced.
• Obesity prevention strategies must be developed.
• Treatment of obesity.
• Systems-based approaches should be applied.

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

Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 could have been avoided if obesity rates were lower, a new report says.

An analysis by the World Obesity Federation found that of the 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, almost 90% (2.2 million) were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

The report, released to coincide with World Obesity Day, calls for obesity to be recognized as a disease in its own right around the world, and for people with obesity to be included in priority lists for COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

“Overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from COVID-19, including the need for hospitalization, for intensive care and for mechanical ventilation,” the WOF notes in the report.

It adds that in countries where less than half the adult population is classified as overweight (body mass index > 25 mg/kg²), for example, Vietnam, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 is a small fraction – around one-tenth – of the level seen in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

And while it acknowledges that figures for COVID-19 deaths are affected by the age structure of national populations and a country’s relative wealth and reporting capacity, “our findings appear to be independent of these contributory factors. Furthermore, other studies have found that overweight remains a highly significant predictor of the need for COVID-19 health care after accounting for these other influences.”

As an example, based on the U.K. experience, where an estimated 36% of COVID-19 hospitalizations have been attributed to lack of physical activity and excess body weight, it can be suggested that up to a third of the costs – between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the longer period – might be attributable to these predisposing risks.

The report said the prevalence of obesity in the United Kingdom is expected to rise from 27.8% in 2016 to more than 35% by 2025.

Rachel Batterham, lead adviser on obesity at the Royal College of Physicians, commented: “The link between high levels of obesity and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. is indisputable, as is the urgent need to address the factors that lead so many people to be living with obesity.

“With 30% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.K. directly attributed to overweight and obesity, and three-quarters of all critically ill patients having overweight or obesity, the human and financial costs are high.”
 

Window of opportunity to prioritize obesity as a disease

WOF says that evolving evidence on the close association between COVID-19 and underlying obesity “provides a new urgency … for political and collective action.”

“Obesity is a disease that does not receive prioritization commensurate with its prevalence and impact, which is rising fastest in emerging economies. It is a gateway to many other noncommunicable diseases and mental-health illness and is now a major factor in COVID-19 complications and mortality.”

The WOF also shows that COVID-19 is not a special case, noting that several other respiratory viruses lead to more severe consequences in people living with excess bodyweight, giving good reasons to expect the next pandemic to have similar effects. “For these reasons we need to recognize overweight as a major risk factor for infectious diseases including respiratory viruses.”

“To prevent pandemic health crises in future requires action now: we call on all readers to support the World Obesity Federation’s call for stronger, more resilient economies that prioritize investment in people’s health.”

There is, it stresses, “a window of opportunity to advocate for, fund and implement these actions in all countries to ensure better, more resilient and sustainable health for all, “now and in our postCOVID-19 future.”

It proposes a ROOTS approach:

• Recognize that obesity is a disease in its own right.
• Obesity monitoring and surveillance must be enhanced.
• Obesity prevention strategies must be developed.
• Treatment of obesity.
• Systems-based approaches should be applied.

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

Another coronavirus surge may be on the way in the United States as daily COVID-19 cases continue to plateau around 60,000, states begin to lift restrictions, and people embark on spring break trips this week, according to CNN.

Outbreaks will likely stem from the B.1.1.7 variant, which was first identified in the United Kingdom, and gain momentum during the next 6-14 weeks.

“Four weeks ago, the B.1.1.7 variant made up about 1%-4% of the virus that we were seeing in communities across the country. Today it’s up to 30%-40%,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told NBC’s Meet the Press on March 7.

Dr. Osterholm compared the current situation with the “eye of the hurricane,” where the skies appear clear but more storms are on the way. Across Europe, 27 countries are seeing significant B.1.1.7 case increases, and 10 are getting hit hard, he said.

“What we’ve seen in Europe, when we hit that 50% mark, you see cases surge,” he said. “So right now, we do have to keep America as safe as we can from this virus by not letting up on any of the public health measures we’ve taken.”

In January, the CDC warned that B.1.1.7 variant cases would increase in 2021 and become the dominant variant in the country by this month. The United States has now reported more than 3,000 cases across 46 states, according to the latest CDC tally updated on March 7. More than 600 cases have been found in Florida, followed by more than 400 in Michigan.

The CDC has said the tally doesn’t represent the total number of B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, only the ones that have been identified by analyzing samples through genomic sequencing.

“Where it has hit in the U.K. and now elsewhere in Europe, it has been catastrophic,” Celine Gounder, MD, an infectious disease specialist with New York University Langone Health, told CNN on March 7.

The variant is more transmissible than the original novel coronavirus, and the cases in the United States are “increasing exponentially,” she said.

“It has driven up rates of hospitalizations and deaths and it’s very difficult to control,” Dr. Gounder said.

Vaccination numbers aren’t yet high enough to stop the predicted surge, she added. The United States has shipped more than 116 million vaccine doses, according to the latest CDC update on March 7. Nearly 59 million people have received at least one dose, and 30.6 million people have received two vaccine doses. About 9% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated.

States shouldn’t ease restrictions until the vaccination numbers are much higher and daily COVID-19 cases fall below 10,000 – and maybe “considerably less than that,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN on March 4.

Several states have already begun to lift COVID-19 safety protocols, with Texas and Mississippi removing mask mandates last week. Businesses in Texas will be able to reopen at full capacity on March 10. For now, public health officials are urging Americans to continue to wear masks, avoid crowds, and follow social distancing guidelines as vaccines roll out across the country.

“This is sort of like we’ve been running this really long marathon, and we’re 100 yards from the finish line and we sit down and we give up,” Dr. Gounder told CNN on Sunday. ‘We’re almost there, we just need to give ourselves a bit more time to get a larger proportion of the population covered with vaccines.”

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

Another coronavirus surge may be on the way in the United States as daily COVID-19 cases continue to plateau around 60,000, states begin to lift restrictions, and people embark on spring break trips this week, according to CNN.

Outbreaks will likely stem from the B.1.1.7 variant, which was first identified in the United Kingdom, and gain momentum during the next 6-14 weeks.

“Four weeks ago, the B.1.1.7 variant made up about 1%-4% of the virus that we were seeing in communities across the country. Today it’s up to 30%-40%,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told NBC’s Meet the Press on March 7.

Dr. Osterholm compared the current situation with the “eye of the hurricane,” where the skies appear clear but more storms are on the way. Across Europe, 27 countries are seeing significant B.1.1.7 case increases, and 10 are getting hit hard, he said.

“What we’ve seen in Europe, when we hit that 50% mark, you see cases surge,” he said. “So right now, we do have to keep America as safe as we can from this virus by not letting up on any of the public health measures we’ve taken.”

In January, the CDC warned that B.1.1.7 variant cases would increase in 2021 and become the dominant variant in the country by this month. The United States has now reported more than 3,000 cases across 46 states, according to the latest CDC tally updated on March 7. More than 600 cases have been found in Florida, followed by more than 400 in Michigan.

The CDC has said the tally doesn’t represent the total number of B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, only the ones that have been identified by analyzing samples through genomic sequencing.

“Where it has hit in the U.K. and now elsewhere in Europe, it has been catastrophic,” Celine Gounder, MD, an infectious disease specialist with New York University Langone Health, told CNN on March 7.

The variant is more transmissible than the original novel coronavirus, and the cases in the United States are “increasing exponentially,” she said.

“It has driven up rates of hospitalizations and deaths and it’s very difficult to control,” Dr. Gounder said.

Vaccination numbers aren’t yet high enough to stop the predicted surge, she added. The United States has shipped more than 116 million vaccine doses, according to the latest CDC update on March 7. Nearly 59 million people have received at least one dose, and 30.6 million people have received two vaccine doses. About 9% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated.

States shouldn’t ease restrictions until the vaccination numbers are much higher and daily COVID-19 cases fall below 10,000 – and maybe “considerably less than that,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN on March 4.

Several states have already begun to lift COVID-19 safety protocols, with Texas and Mississippi removing mask mandates last week. Businesses in Texas will be able to reopen at full capacity on March 10. For now, public health officials are urging Americans to continue to wear masks, avoid crowds, and follow social distancing guidelines as vaccines roll out across the country.

“This is sort of like we’ve been running this really long marathon, and we’re 100 yards from the finish line and we sit down and we give up,” Dr. Gounder told CNN on Sunday. ‘We’re almost there, we just need to give ourselves a bit more time to get a larger proportion of the population covered with vaccines.”

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

Another coronavirus surge may be on the way in the United States as daily COVID-19 cases continue to plateau around 60,000, states begin to lift restrictions, and people embark on spring break trips this week, according to CNN.

Outbreaks will likely stem from the B.1.1.7 variant, which was first identified in the United Kingdom, and gain momentum during the next 6-14 weeks.

“Four weeks ago, the B.1.1.7 variant made up about 1%-4% of the virus that we were seeing in communities across the country. Today it’s up to 30%-40%,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told NBC’s Meet the Press on March 7.

Dr. Osterholm compared the current situation with the “eye of the hurricane,” where the skies appear clear but more storms are on the way. Across Europe, 27 countries are seeing significant B.1.1.7 case increases, and 10 are getting hit hard, he said.

“What we’ve seen in Europe, when we hit that 50% mark, you see cases surge,” he said. “So right now, we do have to keep America as safe as we can from this virus by not letting up on any of the public health measures we’ve taken.”

In January, the CDC warned that B.1.1.7 variant cases would increase in 2021 and become the dominant variant in the country by this month. The United States has now reported more than 3,000 cases across 46 states, according to the latest CDC tally updated on March 7. More than 600 cases have been found in Florida, followed by more than 400 in Michigan.

The CDC has said the tally doesn’t represent the total number of B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, only the ones that have been identified by analyzing samples through genomic sequencing.

“Where it has hit in the U.K. and now elsewhere in Europe, it has been catastrophic,” Celine Gounder, MD, an infectious disease specialist with New York University Langone Health, told CNN on March 7.

The variant is more transmissible than the original novel coronavirus, and the cases in the United States are “increasing exponentially,” she said.

“It has driven up rates of hospitalizations and deaths and it’s very difficult to control,” Dr. Gounder said.

Vaccination numbers aren’t yet high enough to stop the predicted surge, she added. The United States has shipped more than 116 million vaccine doses, according to the latest CDC update on March 7. Nearly 59 million people have received at least one dose, and 30.6 million people have received two vaccine doses. About 9% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated.

States shouldn’t ease restrictions until the vaccination numbers are much higher and daily COVID-19 cases fall below 10,000 – and maybe “considerably less than that,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN on March 4.

Several states have already begun to lift COVID-19 safety protocols, with Texas and Mississippi removing mask mandates last week. Businesses in Texas will be able to reopen at full capacity on March 10. For now, public health officials are urging Americans to continue to wear masks, avoid crowds, and follow social distancing guidelines as vaccines roll out across the country.

“This is sort of like we’ve been running this really long marathon, and we’re 100 yards from the finish line and we sit down and we give up,” Dr. Gounder told CNN on Sunday. ‘We’re almost there, we just need to give ourselves a bit more time to get a larger proportion of the population covered with vaccines.”

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

A single pill of the investigational drug molnupiravir taken twice a day for 5 days eliminated SARS-CoV-2 from the nasopharynx of 49 participants.

That led Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, to suggest a future in which a drug like molnupiravir could be taken in the first few days of symptoms to prevent severe disease, similar to Tamiflu for influenza.

“I think it’s critically important,” he said of the data. Emory University was involved in the trial of molnupiravir but Dr. del Rio was not part of that team. “This drug offers the first antiviral oral drug that then could be used in an outpatient setting.”

Still, Dr. del Rio said it’s too soon to call this particular drug the breakthrough clinicians need to keep people out of the ICU. “It has the potential to be practice changing; it’s not practice changing at the moment.”

Wendy Painter, MD, of Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, who presented the data at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, agreed. While the data are promising, “We will need to see if people get better from actual illness” to assess the real value of the drug in clinical care.

“That’s a phase 3 objective we’ll need to prove,” she said in an interview.

Phase 2/3 efficacy and safety studies of the drug are now underway in hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients.

In a brief prerecorded presentation of the data, Dr. Painter laid out what researchers know so far: Preclinical studies suggest that molnupiravir is effective against a number of viruses, including coronaviruses and specifically SARS-CoV-2. It prevents a virus from replicating by inducing viral error catastrophe (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99[21]:13374-6) – essentially overloading the virus with replication and mutation until the virus burns itself out and can’t produce replicable copies.

In this phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, researchers recruited 202 adults who were treated at an outpatient clinic with fever or other symptoms of a respiratory virus and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by day 4. Participants were randomly assigned to three different groups: 200 mg of molnupiravir, 400 mg, or 800 mg. The 200-mg arm was matched 1:1 with a placebo-controlled group, and the other two groups had three participants in the active group for every one control.

Participants took the pills twice daily for 5 days, and then were followed for a total of 28 days to monitor for complications or adverse events. At days 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28, researchers also took nasopharyngeal swabs for polymerase chain reaction tests, to sequence the virus, and to grow cultures of SARS-CoV-2 to see if the virus that’s present is actually capable of infecting others.

Notably, the pills do not have to be refrigerated at any point in the process, alleviating the cold-chain challenges that have plagued vaccines.

“There’s an urgent need for an easily produced, transported, stored, and administered antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Painter said.

Of the 202 people recruited, 182 had swabs that could be evaluated, of which 78 showed infection at baseline. The results are based on labs of those 78 participants.

By day 3, 28% of patients in the placebo arm had SARS-CoV-2 in their nasopharynx, compared with 20.4% of patients receiving any dose of molnupiravir. But by day 5, none of the participants receiving the active drug had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in their nasopharynx. In comparison, 24% of people in the placebo arm still had detectable virus.

Halfway through the treatment course, differences in the presence of infectious virus were already evident. By day 3 of the 5-day course, 36.4% of participants in the 200-mg group had detectable virus in the nasopharynx, compared with 21% in the 400-mg group and just 12.5% in the 800-mg group. And although the reduction in SARS-CoV-2 was noticeable in the 200-mg and the 400-mg arms, it was only statistically significant in the 800-mg arm.

In contrast, by the end of the 5 days in the placebo groups, infectious virus varied from 18.2% in the 200-mg placebo group to 30% in the 800-mg group. This points out the variability of the disease course of SARS-CoV-2.

“You just don’t know” which infections will lead to serious disease, Dr. Painter said in an interview. “And don’t you wish we did?”

Seven participants discontinued treatment, though only four experienced adverse events. Three of those discontinued the trial because of adverse events. The study is still blinded, so it’s unclear what those events were, but Dr. Painter said that they were not thought to be related to the study drug.

The bottom line, said Dr. Painter, was that people treated with molnupiravir had starkly different outcomes in lab measures during the study.

“An average of 10 days after symptom onset, 24% of placebo patients remained culture positive” for SARS-CoV-2 – meaning there wasn’t just virus in the nasopharynx, but it was capable of replicating, Dr. Painter said. “In contrast, no infectious virus could be recovered at study day 5 in any molnupiravir-treated patients.”

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

A single pill of the investigational drug molnupiravir taken twice a day for 5 days eliminated SARS-CoV-2 from the nasopharynx of 49 participants.

That led Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, to suggest a future in which a drug like molnupiravir could be taken in the first few days of symptoms to prevent severe disease, similar to Tamiflu for influenza.

“I think it’s critically important,” he said of the data. Emory University was involved in the trial of molnupiravir but Dr. del Rio was not part of that team. “This drug offers the first antiviral oral drug that then could be used in an outpatient setting.”

Still, Dr. del Rio said it’s too soon to call this particular drug the breakthrough clinicians need to keep people out of the ICU. “It has the potential to be practice changing; it’s not practice changing at the moment.”

Wendy Painter, MD, of Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, who presented the data at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, agreed. While the data are promising, “We will need to see if people get better from actual illness” to assess the real value of the drug in clinical care.

“That’s a phase 3 objective we’ll need to prove,” she said in an interview.

Phase 2/3 efficacy and safety studies of the drug are now underway in hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients.

In a brief prerecorded presentation of the data, Dr. Painter laid out what researchers know so far: Preclinical studies suggest that molnupiravir is effective against a number of viruses, including coronaviruses and specifically SARS-CoV-2. It prevents a virus from replicating by inducing viral error catastrophe (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99[21]:13374-6) – essentially overloading the virus with replication and mutation until the virus burns itself out and can’t produce replicable copies.

In this phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, researchers recruited 202 adults who were treated at an outpatient clinic with fever or other symptoms of a respiratory virus and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by day 4. Participants were randomly assigned to three different groups: 200 mg of molnupiravir, 400 mg, or 800 mg. The 200-mg arm was matched 1:1 with a placebo-controlled group, and the other two groups had three participants in the active group for every one control.

Participants took the pills twice daily for 5 days, and then were followed for a total of 28 days to monitor for complications or adverse events. At days 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28, researchers also took nasopharyngeal swabs for polymerase chain reaction tests, to sequence the virus, and to grow cultures of SARS-CoV-2 to see if the virus that’s present is actually capable of infecting others.

Notably, the pills do not have to be refrigerated at any point in the process, alleviating the cold-chain challenges that have plagued vaccines.

“There’s an urgent need for an easily produced, transported, stored, and administered antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Painter said.

Of the 202 people recruited, 182 had swabs that could be evaluated, of which 78 showed infection at baseline. The results are based on labs of those 78 participants.

By day 3, 28% of patients in the placebo arm had SARS-CoV-2 in their nasopharynx, compared with 20.4% of patients receiving any dose of molnupiravir. But by day 5, none of the participants receiving the active drug had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in their nasopharynx. In comparison, 24% of people in the placebo arm still had detectable virus.

Halfway through the treatment course, differences in the presence of infectious virus were already evident. By day 3 of the 5-day course, 36.4% of participants in the 200-mg group had detectable virus in the nasopharynx, compared with 21% in the 400-mg group and just 12.5% in the 800-mg group. And although the reduction in SARS-CoV-2 was noticeable in the 200-mg and the 400-mg arms, it was only statistically significant in the 800-mg arm.

In contrast, by the end of the 5 days in the placebo groups, infectious virus varied from 18.2% in the 200-mg placebo group to 30% in the 800-mg group. This points out the variability of the disease course of SARS-CoV-2.

“You just don’t know” which infections will lead to serious disease, Dr. Painter said in an interview. “And don’t you wish we did?”

Seven participants discontinued treatment, though only four experienced adverse events. Three of those discontinued the trial because of adverse events. The study is still blinded, so it’s unclear what those events were, but Dr. Painter said that they were not thought to be related to the study drug.

The bottom line, said Dr. Painter, was that people treated with molnupiravir had starkly different outcomes in lab measures during the study.

“An average of 10 days after symptom onset, 24% of placebo patients remained culture positive” for SARS-CoV-2 – meaning there wasn’t just virus in the nasopharynx, but it was capable of replicating, Dr. Painter said. “In contrast, no infectious virus could be recovered at study day 5 in any molnupiravir-treated patients.”

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

A single pill of the investigational drug molnupiravir taken twice a day for 5 days eliminated SARS-CoV-2 from the nasopharynx of 49 participants.

That led Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, to suggest a future in which a drug like molnupiravir could be taken in the first few days of symptoms to prevent severe disease, similar to Tamiflu for influenza.

“I think it’s critically important,” he said of the data. Emory University was involved in the trial of molnupiravir but Dr. del Rio was not part of that team. “This drug offers the first antiviral oral drug that then could be used in an outpatient setting.”

Still, Dr. del Rio said it’s too soon to call this particular drug the breakthrough clinicians need to keep people out of the ICU. “It has the potential to be practice changing; it’s not practice changing at the moment.”

Wendy Painter, MD, of Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, who presented the data at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, agreed. While the data are promising, “We will need to see if people get better from actual illness” to assess the real value of the drug in clinical care.

“That’s a phase 3 objective we’ll need to prove,” she said in an interview.

Phase 2/3 efficacy and safety studies of the drug are now underway in hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients.

In a brief prerecorded presentation of the data, Dr. Painter laid out what researchers know so far: Preclinical studies suggest that molnupiravir is effective against a number of viruses, including coronaviruses and specifically SARS-CoV-2. It prevents a virus from replicating by inducing viral error catastrophe (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99[21]:13374-6) – essentially overloading the virus with replication and mutation until the virus burns itself out and can’t produce replicable copies.

In this phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, researchers recruited 202 adults who were treated at an outpatient clinic with fever or other symptoms of a respiratory virus and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by day 4. Participants were randomly assigned to three different groups: 200 mg of molnupiravir, 400 mg, or 800 mg. The 200-mg arm was matched 1:1 with a placebo-controlled group, and the other two groups had three participants in the active group for every one control.

Participants took the pills twice daily for 5 days, and then were followed for a total of 28 days to monitor for complications or adverse events. At days 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28, researchers also took nasopharyngeal swabs for polymerase chain reaction tests, to sequence the virus, and to grow cultures of SARS-CoV-2 to see if the virus that’s present is actually capable of infecting others.

Notably, the pills do not have to be refrigerated at any point in the process, alleviating the cold-chain challenges that have plagued vaccines.

“There’s an urgent need for an easily produced, transported, stored, and administered antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Painter said.

Of the 202 people recruited, 182 had swabs that could be evaluated, of which 78 showed infection at baseline. The results are based on labs of those 78 participants.

By day 3, 28% of patients in the placebo arm had SARS-CoV-2 in their nasopharynx, compared with 20.4% of patients receiving any dose of molnupiravir. But by day 5, none of the participants receiving the active drug had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in their nasopharynx. In comparison, 24% of people in the placebo arm still had detectable virus.

Halfway through the treatment course, differences in the presence of infectious virus were already evident. By day 3 of the 5-day course, 36.4% of participants in the 200-mg group had detectable virus in the nasopharynx, compared with 21% in the 400-mg group and just 12.5% in the 800-mg group. And although the reduction in SARS-CoV-2 was noticeable in the 200-mg and the 400-mg arms, it was only statistically significant in the 800-mg arm.

In contrast, by the end of the 5 days in the placebo groups, infectious virus varied from 18.2% in the 200-mg placebo group to 30% in the 800-mg group. This points out the variability of the disease course of SARS-CoV-2.

“You just don’t know” which infections will lead to serious disease, Dr. Painter said in an interview. “And don’t you wish we did?”

Seven participants discontinued treatment, though only four experienced adverse events. Three of those discontinued the trial because of adverse events. The study is still blinded, so it’s unclear what those events were, but Dr. Painter said that they were not thought to be related to the study drug.

The bottom line, said Dr. Painter, was that people treated with molnupiravir had starkly different outcomes in lab measures during the study.

“An average of 10 days after symptom onset, 24% of placebo patients remained culture positive” for SARS-CoV-2 – meaning there wasn’t just virus in the nasopharynx, but it was capable of replicating, Dr. Painter said. “In contrast, no infectious virus could be recovered at study day 5 in any molnupiravir-treated patients.”

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

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can safely gather unmasked and inside with nonvulnerable people who are not yet immunized, according to long-awaited guidance released by the CDC.

“Today’s action represents an important first step. It is not our final destination,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said March 8 at a White House briefing. “As more people get vaccinated, levels of COVID-19 infection decline in communities, and as our understanding of COVID immunity improves, we look forward to updating these recommendations to the public.”

According to the new guidance, people who are at least 2 weeks out from their last dose can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing.
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Avoid quarantine and testing following exposure to someone if they remain asymptomatic.

However, there are still restrictions that will remain until further data are collected. Those who are fully vaccinated must still:

• Wear masks and physically distance in public settings and around people at high risk for severe disease.
• Wear masks and physically distance when visiting unvaccinated people from more than one household.
• Avoid medium- and large-sized gatherings.
• Avoid travel.

People considered at high risk for severe disease include older adults and those with cancer, chronic kidney disease, COPD, Down syndrome, heart disease, heart failure, a weakened immune system, obesity, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes. The category also includes pregnant women and smokers.

“In public spaces, fully vaccinated people should continue to follow guidance to protect themselves and others, including wearing a well-fitted mask, physical distancing (at least 6 feet), avoiding crowds, avoiding poorly ventilated spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands often, and following any applicable workplace or school guidance,” the guidance says. “Fully vaccinated people should still watch for symptoms of COVID-19, especially following an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.”

Respecting travel restrictions is still crucial, Dr. Walensky said, given past surges and variants that have emerged after periods of increased travel.

"We would like to give the opportunity for vaccinated grandparents to visit children and grandchildren who are healthy and local,” Dr. Walensky said.

But, she said, “It’s important to realize as we’re working through this that over 90% of the population is not yet vaccinated.”

For now, there are not enough data on transmission rates from those who are vaccinated to the rest of the public. However, Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a briefing last month that preliminary data are “pointing in a very favorable direction.”

Studies from Spain and Israel published last month showed the amount of viral load – or the amount of the COVID-19 virus in someone’s body – is significantly lower if someone gets infected after they’ve been vaccinated, compared with people who get infected and didn’t have the vaccine. Lower viral load means much lower chances of passing the virus to someone else, Dr. Fauci said.

“The science of COVID-19 is complex,” Dr. Walensky said, “and our understanding of it continues to evolve.”

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can safely gather unmasked and inside with nonvulnerable people who are not yet immunized, according to long-awaited guidance released by the CDC.

“Today’s action represents an important first step. It is not our final destination,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said March 8 at a White House briefing. “As more people get vaccinated, levels of COVID-19 infection decline in communities, and as our understanding of COVID immunity improves, we look forward to updating these recommendations to the public.”

According to the new guidance, people who are at least 2 weeks out from their last dose can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing.
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Avoid quarantine and testing following exposure to someone if they remain asymptomatic.

However, there are still restrictions that will remain until further data are collected. Those who are fully vaccinated must still:

• Wear masks and physically distance in public settings and around people at high risk for severe disease.
• Wear masks and physically distance when visiting unvaccinated people from more than one household.
• Avoid medium- and large-sized gatherings.
• Avoid travel.

People considered at high risk for severe disease include older adults and those with cancer, chronic kidney disease, COPD, Down syndrome, heart disease, heart failure, a weakened immune system, obesity, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes. The category also includes pregnant women and smokers.

“In public spaces, fully vaccinated people should continue to follow guidance to protect themselves and others, including wearing a well-fitted mask, physical distancing (at least 6 feet), avoiding crowds, avoiding poorly ventilated spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands often, and following any applicable workplace or school guidance,” the guidance says. “Fully vaccinated people should still watch for symptoms of COVID-19, especially following an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.”

Respecting travel restrictions is still crucial, Dr. Walensky said, given past surges and variants that have emerged after periods of increased travel.

"We would like to give the opportunity for vaccinated grandparents to visit children and grandchildren who are healthy and local,” Dr. Walensky said.

But, she said, “It’s important to realize as we’re working through this that over 90% of the population is not yet vaccinated.”

For now, there are not enough data on transmission rates from those who are vaccinated to the rest of the public. However, Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a briefing last month that preliminary data are “pointing in a very favorable direction.”

Studies from Spain and Israel published last month showed the amount of viral load – or the amount of the COVID-19 virus in someone’s body – is significantly lower if someone gets infected after they’ve been vaccinated, compared with people who get infected and didn’t have the vaccine. Lower viral load means much lower chances of passing the virus to someone else, Dr. Fauci said.

“The science of COVID-19 is complex,” Dr. Walensky said, “and our understanding of it continues to evolve.”

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can safely gather unmasked and inside with nonvulnerable people who are not yet immunized, according to long-awaited guidance released by the CDC.

“Today’s action represents an important first step. It is not our final destination,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said March 8 at a White House briefing. “As more people get vaccinated, levels of COVID-19 infection decline in communities, and as our understanding of COVID immunity improves, we look forward to updating these recommendations to the public.”

According to the new guidance, people who are at least 2 weeks out from their last dose can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing.
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Avoid quarantine and testing following exposure to someone if they remain asymptomatic.

However, there are still restrictions that will remain until further data are collected. Those who are fully vaccinated must still:

• Wear masks and physically distance in public settings and around people at high risk for severe disease.
• Wear masks and physically distance when visiting unvaccinated people from more than one household.
• Avoid medium- and large-sized gatherings.
• Avoid travel.

People considered at high risk for severe disease include older adults and those with cancer, chronic kidney disease, COPD, Down syndrome, heart disease, heart failure, a weakened immune system, obesity, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes. The category also includes pregnant women and smokers.

“In public spaces, fully vaccinated people should continue to follow guidance to protect themselves and others, including wearing a well-fitted mask, physical distancing (at least 6 feet), avoiding crowds, avoiding poorly ventilated spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands often, and following any applicable workplace or school guidance,” the guidance says. “Fully vaccinated people should still watch for symptoms of COVID-19, especially following an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.”

Respecting travel restrictions is still crucial, Dr. Walensky said, given past surges and variants that have emerged after periods of increased travel.

"We would like to give the opportunity for vaccinated grandparents to visit children and grandchildren who are healthy and local,” Dr. Walensky said.

But, she said, “It’s important to realize as we’re working through this that over 90% of the population is not yet vaccinated.”

For now, there are not enough data on transmission rates from those who are vaccinated to the rest of the public. However, Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a briefing last month that preliminary data are “pointing in a very favorable direction.”

Studies from Spain and Israel published last month showed the amount of viral load – or the amount of the COVID-19 virus in someone’s body – is significantly lower if someone gets infected after they’ve been vaccinated, compared with people who get infected and didn’t have the vaccine. Lower viral load means much lower chances of passing the virus to someone else, Dr. Fauci said.

“The science of COVID-19 is complex,” Dr. Walensky said, “and our understanding of it continues to evolve.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:
•    A minimally invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling
•    Retroperitoneal anatomy and parametrial dissection in robotic uterine artery-sparing radical trachelectomy
•    Maintaining and reclaiming hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:
•    A minimally invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling
•    Retroperitoneal anatomy and parametrial dissection in robotic uterine artery-sparing radical trachelectomy
•    Maintaining and reclaiming hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:
•    A minimally invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling
•    Retroperitoneal anatomy and parametrial dissection in robotic uterine artery-sparing radical trachelectomy
•    Maintaining and reclaiming hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

A large, retrospective study shows how germline genetic testing has evolved over time in women with breast or ovarian cancer and reveals a path forward for testing these patients.

Investigators found racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing as well as “persistent underuse” of testing in patients with ovarian cancer.

The team also discovered that most pathogenic variant (PV) results were in 20 genes associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and testing other genes largely revealed variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues recounted these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Because of improvements in sequencing technology, competition among commercial purveyors, and declining cost, genetic testing has been increasingly available to clinicians for patient management and cancer prevention (JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314[10]:997-8). Although germline testing can guide therapy for several solid tumors, there is little research about how often and how well it is used in practice.

For their study, Dr. Kurian and colleagues used a SEER Genetic Testing Linkage Demonstration Project in a population-based assessment of testing for cancer risk. The investigators analyzed 7-year trends in testing among all women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in Georgia or California from 2013 to 2017, reviewing testing patterns and result interpretation from 2012 to 2019.

Before analyzing the data, the investigators made the following hypotheses:

• Multigene panels (MGP) would entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.
• Testing underutilization in patients with ovarian cancer would improve over time.
• More patients would be tested at lower levels of pretest risk for PVs.
• Sociodemographic differences in testing trends would not be observed.
• Detection of PVs and VUS would increase.
• Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of VUS would diminish.

Study conduct

The investigators examined genetic tests performed from 2012 through the beginning of 2019 at major commercial laboratories and linked that information with data in the SEER registries in Georgia and California on all breast and ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017. There were few criteria for exclusion.

Genetic testing results were categorized as identifying a PV or likely PV, VUS, or benign or likely benign mutation by American College of Medical Genetics criteria. When a patient had genetic testing on more than one occasion, the most recent test was used.

If a PV was identified, the types of PVs were grouped according to the level of evidence that supported pathogenicity into the following categories:

• BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
• PVs in other genes designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as associated with breast or ovarian cancer (e.g., ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, MS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).
• PVs in other actionable genes (e.g., APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL).
• Any other tested genes.

The investigators also tabulated instances in which genetic testing identified a VUS in any gene but no PV. If a VUS was identified originally and was reclassified more recently into the “PV/likely PV” or “benign/likely benign” categories, only the resolved categorization was recorded.

The authors evaluated clinical and sociodemographic correlates of testing trends for breast and ovarian cancer, assessing the relationship between race, age, and geographic site in receipt of any test or type of test.

Among laboratories, the investigators examined trends in the number of genes tested, associations with sociodemographic factors, categories of test results, and whether trends differed by race or ethnicity.
 

Findings, by hypothesis

Hypothesis #1: MGP will entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.

About 25% of tested patients with breast cancer diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 80% of those diagnosed in late 2017.

The trend for ovarian cancer was similar. About 40% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 90% diagnosed in late 2017. These trends were similar in California and Georgia.

From 2012 to 2019, there was a consistent upward trend in gene number for patients with breast cancer (mean, 19) or ovarian cancer (mean, 21), from approximately 10 genes to 35 genes.
 

Hypothesis #2: Underutilization of testing in patients with ovarian cancer will improve.

Among the 187,535 patients with breast cancer and the 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in Georgia or California from 2013 through 2017, on average, testing rates increased 2% per year.

In all, 25.2% of breast cancer patients and 34.3% of ovarian cancer patients had genetic testing on one (87.3%) or more (12.7%) occasions.

Prior research suggested that, in 2013 and 2014, 31% of women with ovarian cancer had genetic testing (JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4[8]:1066-72/ J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15).

The investigators therefore concluded that underutilization of genetic testing in ovarian cancer did not improve substantially during the 7-year interval analyzed.
 

Hypothesis #3: More patients will be tested at lower levels of pretest risk.

These data were more difficult to abstract from the SEER database, but older patients were more likely to be tested in later years.

In patients older than 60 years of age (who accounted for more than 50% of both cancer cohorts), testing rates increased from 11.1% to 14.9% for breast cancer and 25.3% to 31.4% for ovarian cancer. By contrast, patients younger than 45 years of age were less than 15% of the sample and had lower testing rates over time.

There were no substantial changes in testing rates by other clinical variables. Therefore, in concert with the age-related testing trends, it is likely that women were tested for genetic mutations at increasingly lower levels of pretest risk.
 

Hypothesis #4: Sociodemographic differences in testing trends will not be observed.

Among patients with breast cancer, approximately 31% of those who had genetic testing were uninsured, 31% had Medicaid, and 26% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

For patients with ovarian cancer, approximately 28% were uninsured, 27% had Medicaid, and 39% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

The authors had previously found that less testing was associated with Black race, greater poverty, and less insurance coverage (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15). However, they noted no changes in testing rates by sociodemographic variables over time.
 

Hypothesis #5: Detection of both PVs and VUS will increase.

The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (P < .001), whereas PV yield for the two other clinically salient categories (breast or ovarian and other actionable genes) increased.

The proportion of PVs in any breast or ovarian gene increased from 1.3% to 4.6%, and the proportion in any other actionable gene increased from 0.3% to 1.3%.

For breast cancer patients, VUS-only rates increased from 8.5% in early 2013 to 22.4% in late 2017.

For ovarian cancer patients, the yield of PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 15.7% to 12.4% (P < .001), whereas the PV yield for breast or ovarian genes increased from 3.9% to 4.3%, and the yield for other actionable genes increased from 0.3% to 2.0%.

In ovarian cancer patients, the PV or VUS-only result rate increased from 30.8% in early 2013 to 43.0% in late 2017, entirely due to the increase in VUS-only rates. VUS were identified in 8.1% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 and increased to 28.3% in patients diagnosed in late 2017.
 

Hypothesis #6: Racial or ethnic disparities in rates of VUS will diminish.

Among patients with breast cancer, racial or ethnic differences in PV rates were small and did not change over time. For patients with ovarian cancer, PV rates across racial or ethnic groups diminished over time.

However, for both breast and ovarian cancer patients, there were large differences in VUS-only rates by race and ethnicity that persisted during the interval studied.

In 2017, for patients with breast cancer, VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (42.4%), Black (36.6%), and Hispanic (27.7%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.5%, P < .001).

Similar trends were noted for patients with ovarian cancer. VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (47.8%), Black (46.0%), and Hispanic (36.8%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.6%, P < .001).

Multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for tested patients with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the results showed no significant interaction between race or ethnicity and date. Therefore, there was no significant change in racial or ethnic differences in VUS-only results across the study period.
 

Where these findings leave clinicians in 2021

Among the patients studied, there was:

• Marked expansion in the number of genes sequenced.
• A likely modest trend toward testing patients with lower pretest risk of a PV.
• No sociodemographic differences in testing trends.
• A small increase in PV rates and a substantial increase in VUS-only rates.
• Near-complete replacement of selective testing by MGP.

For patients with breast cancer, the proportion of all PVs that were in BRCA1/2 fell substantially. Adoption of MGP testing doubled the probability of detecting a PV in other tested genes. Most of the increase was in genes with an established breast or ovarian cancer association, with fewer PVs found in other actionable genes and very few PVs in other tested genes.

Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors observed a sustained undertesting of patients with ovarian cancer. Only 34.3% performed versus nearly 100% recommended, with little change since 2014.

This finding is surprising – and tremendously disappointing – since the prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs is higher in ovarian cancer than in other cancers (Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147[2]:375-380), and germline-targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors has been approved for use since 2014.

Furthermore, insurance carriers provide coverage for genetic testing in most patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, and/or peritoneum.
 

Action plans: Less could be more

During the period analyzed, the increase in VUS-only results dramatically outpaced the increase in PVs.

Since there is a substantially larger volume of clinical genetic testing in non-Hispanic White patients with breast or ovarian cancer, the spectrum of normal variation is less well-defined in other racial or ethnic groups.

The study showed a widening of the “racial-ethnic VUS gap,” with Black and Asian patients having nearly twofold more VUS, although they were not tested for more genes than non-Hispanic White patients.

This is problematic on several levels. Identification of a VUS is challenging for communicating results to and recommending cascade testing for family members.

There is worrisome information regarding overtreatment or counseling of VUS patients about their results. For example, the PROMPT registry showed that 10%-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer underwent oophorectomy without a clear indication for the procedure.

Although population-based testing might augment the available data on the spectrum of normal variation in racial and ethnic minorities, it would likely exacerbate the proliferation of VUS over PVs.

It is essential to accelerate ongoing approaches to VUS reclassification.

In addition, the authors suggest that it may be time to reverse the trend in increasing the number of genes tested in MGPs. Their rationale is that, in Georgia and California, most PVs among patients with breast and ovarian cancer were identified in 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PMS2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).

If the Georgia and California data are representative of a more generalized pattern, a panel of 20 breast cancer– and/or ovarian cancer–associated genes may be ideal for maximizing the yield of clinically relevant PVs and minimizing VUS results for all patients.

Finally, defining the patient, clinician, and health care system factors that impede widespread genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients must be prioritized. As the authors suggest, quality improvement efforts should focus on getting a lot closer to testing rates of 100% for patients with ovarian cancer and building the database that will help sort VUS in minority patients into their proper context of pathogenicity, rather than adding more genes per test.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the California Department of Public Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, Genentech, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, Oncoquest, Tesaro, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A large, retrospective study shows how germline genetic testing has evolved over time in women with breast or ovarian cancer and reveals a path forward for testing these patients.

Investigators found racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing as well as “persistent underuse” of testing in patients with ovarian cancer.

The team also discovered that most pathogenic variant (PV) results were in 20 genes associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and testing other genes largely revealed variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues recounted these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Because of improvements in sequencing technology, competition among commercial purveyors, and declining cost, genetic testing has been increasingly available to clinicians for patient management and cancer prevention (JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314[10]:997-8). Although germline testing can guide therapy for several solid tumors, there is little research about how often and how well it is used in practice.

For their study, Dr. Kurian and colleagues used a SEER Genetic Testing Linkage Demonstration Project in a population-based assessment of testing for cancer risk. The investigators analyzed 7-year trends in testing among all women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in Georgia or California from 2013 to 2017, reviewing testing patterns and result interpretation from 2012 to 2019.

Before analyzing the data, the investigators made the following hypotheses:

• Multigene panels (MGP) would entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.
• Testing underutilization in patients with ovarian cancer would improve over time.
• More patients would be tested at lower levels of pretest risk for PVs.
• Sociodemographic differences in testing trends would not be observed.
• Detection of PVs and VUS would increase.
• Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of VUS would diminish.

Study conduct

The investigators examined genetic tests performed from 2012 through the beginning of 2019 at major commercial laboratories and linked that information with data in the SEER registries in Georgia and California on all breast and ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017. There were few criteria for exclusion.

Genetic testing results were categorized as identifying a PV or likely PV, VUS, or benign or likely benign mutation by American College of Medical Genetics criteria. When a patient had genetic testing on more than one occasion, the most recent test was used.

If a PV was identified, the types of PVs were grouped according to the level of evidence that supported pathogenicity into the following categories:

• BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
• PVs in other genes designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as associated with breast or ovarian cancer (e.g., ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, MS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).
• PVs in other actionable genes (e.g., APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL).
• Any other tested genes.

The investigators also tabulated instances in which genetic testing identified a VUS in any gene but no PV. If a VUS was identified originally and was reclassified more recently into the “PV/likely PV” or “benign/likely benign” categories, only the resolved categorization was recorded.

The authors evaluated clinical and sociodemographic correlates of testing trends for breast and ovarian cancer, assessing the relationship between race, age, and geographic site in receipt of any test or type of test.

Among laboratories, the investigators examined trends in the number of genes tested, associations with sociodemographic factors, categories of test results, and whether trends differed by race or ethnicity.
 

Findings, by hypothesis

Hypothesis #1: MGP will entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.

About 25% of tested patients with breast cancer diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 80% of those diagnosed in late 2017.

The trend for ovarian cancer was similar. About 40% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 90% diagnosed in late 2017. These trends were similar in California and Georgia.

From 2012 to 2019, there was a consistent upward trend in gene number for patients with breast cancer (mean, 19) or ovarian cancer (mean, 21), from approximately 10 genes to 35 genes.
 

Hypothesis #2: Underutilization of testing in patients with ovarian cancer will improve.

Among the 187,535 patients with breast cancer and the 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in Georgia or California from 2013 through 2017, on average, testing rates increased 2% per year.

In all, 25.2% of breast cancer patients and 34.3% of ovarian cancer patients had genetic testing on one (87.3%) or more (12.7%) occasions.

Prior research suggested that, in 2013 and 2014, 31% of women with ovarian cancer had genetic testing (JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4[8]:1066-72/ J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15).

The investigators therefore concluded that underutilization of genetic testing in ovarian cancer did not improve substantially during the 7-year interval analyzed.
 

Hypothesis #3: More patients will be tested at lower levels of pretest risk.

These data were more difficult to abstract from the SEER database, but older patients were more likely to be tested in later years.

In patients older than 60 years of age (who accounted for more than 50% of both cancer cohorts), testing rates increased from 11.1% to 14.9% for breast cancer and 25.3% to 31.4% for ovarian cancer. By contrast, patients younger than 45 years of age were less than 15% of the sample and had lower testing rates over time.

There were no substantial changes in testing rates by other clinical variables. Therefore, in concert with the age-related testing trends, it is likely that women were tested for genetic mutations at increasingly lower levels of pretest risk.
 

Hypothesis #4: Sociodemographic differences in testing trends will not be observed.

Among patients with breast cancer, approximately 31% of those who had genetic testing were uninsured, 31% had Medicaid, and 26% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

For patients with ovarian cancer, approximately 28% were uninsured, 27% had Medicaid, and 39% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

The authors had previously found that less testing was associated with Black race, greater poverty, and less insurance coverage (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15). However, they noted no changes in testing rates by sociodemographic variables over time.
 

Hypothesis #5: Detection of both PVs and VUS will increase.

The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (P < .001), whereas PV yield for the two other clinically salient categories (breast or ovarian and other actionable genes) increased.

The proportion of PVs in any breast or ovarian gene increased from 1.3% to 4.6%, and the proportion in any other actionable gene increased from 0.3% to 1.3%.

For breast cancer patients, VUS-only rates increased from 8.5% in early 2013 to 22.4% in late 2017.

For ovarian cancer patients, the yield of PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 15.7% to 12.4% (P < .001), whereas the PV yield for breast or ovarian genes increased from 3.9% to 4.3%, and the yield for other actionable genes increased from 0.3% to 2.0%.

In ovarian cancer patients, the PV or VUS-only result rate increased from 30.8% in early 2013 to 43.0% in late 2017, entirely due to the increase in VUS-only rates. VUS were identified in 8.1% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 and increased to 28.3% in patients diagnosed in late 2017.
 

Hypothesis #6: Racial or ethnic disparities in rates of VUS will diminish.

Among patients with breast cancer, racial or ethnic differences in PV rates were small and did not change over time. For patients with ovarian cancer, PV rates across racial or ethnic groups diminished over time.

However, for both breast and ovarian cancer patients, there were large differences in VUS-only rates by race and ethnicity that persisted during the interval studied.

In 2017, for patients with breast cancer, VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (42.4%), Black (36.6%), and Hispanic (27.7%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.5%, P < .001).

Similar trends were noted for patients with ovarian cancer. VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (47.8%), Black (46.0%), and Hispanic (36.8%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.6%, P < .001).

Multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for tested patients with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the results showed no significant interaction between race or ethnicity and date. Therefore, there was no significant change in racial or ethnic differences in VUS-only results across the study period.
 

Where these findings leave clinicians in 2021

Among the patients studied, there was:

• Marked expansion in the number of genes sequenced.
• A likely modest trend toward testing patients with lower pretest risk of a PV.
• No sociodemographic differences in testing trends.
• A small increase in PV rates and a substantial increase in VUS-only rates.
• Near-complete replacement of selective testing by MGP.

For patients with breast cancer, the proportion of all PVs that were in BRCA1/2 fell substantially. Adoption of MGP testing doubled the probability of detecting a PV in other tested genes. Most of the increase was in genes with an established breast or ovarian cancer association, with fewer PVs found in other actionable genes and very few PVs in other tested genes.

Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors observed a sustained undertesting of patients with ovarian cancer. Only 34.3% performed versus nearly 100% recommended, with little change since 2014.

This finding is surprising – and tremendously disappointing – since the prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs is higher in ovarian cancer than in other cancers (Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147[2]:375-380), and germline-targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors has been approved for use since 2014.

Furthermore, insurance carriers provide coverage for genetic testing in most patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, and/or peritoneum.
 

Action plans: Less could be more

During the period analyzed, the increase in VUS-only results dramatically outpaced the increase in PVs.

Since there is a substantially larger volume of clinical genetic testing in non-Hispanic White patients with breast or ovarian cancer, the spectrum of normal variation is less well-defined in other racial or ethnic groups.

The study showed a widening of the “racial-ethnic VUS gap,” with Black and Asian patients having nearly twofold more VUS, although they were not tested for more genes than non-Hispanic White patients.

This is problematic on several levels. Identification of a VUS is challenging for communicating results to and recommending cascade testing for family members.

There is worrisome information regarding overtreatment or counseling of VUS patients about their results. For example, the PROMPT registry showed that 10%-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer underwent oophorectomy without a clear indication for the procedure.

Although population-based testing might augment the available data on the spectrum of normal variation in racial and ethnic minorities, it would likely exacerbate the proliferation of VUS over PVs.

It is essential to accelerate ongoing approaches to VUS reclassification.

In addition, the authors suggest that it may be time to reverse the trend in increasing the number of genes tested in MGPs. Their rationale is that, in Georgia and California, most PVs among patients with breast and ovarian cancer were identified in 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PMS2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).

If the Georgia and California data are representative of a more generalized pattern, a panel of 20 breast cancer– and/or ovarian cancer–associated genes may be ideal for maximizing the yield of clinically relevant PVs and minimizing VUS results for all patients.

Finally, defining the patient, clinician, and health care system factors that impede widespread genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients must be prioritized. As the authors suggest, quality improvement efforts should focus on getting a lot closer to testing rates of 100% for patients with ovarian cancer and building the database that will help sort VUS in minority patients into their proper context of pathogenicity, rather than adding more genes per test.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the California Department of Public Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, Genentech, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, Oncoquest, Tesaro, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A large, retrospective study shows how germline genetic testing has evolved over time in women with breast or ovarian cancer and reveals a path forward for testing these patients.

Investigators found racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing as well as “persistent underuse” of testing in patients with ovarian cancer.

The team also discovered that most pathogenic variant (PV) results were in 20 genes associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer, and testing other genes largely revealed variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues recounted these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Because of improvements in sequencing technology, competition among commercial purveyors, and declining cost, genetic testing has been increasingly available to clinicians for patient management and cancer prevention (JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314[10]:997-8). Although germline testing can guide therapy for several solid tumors, there is little research about how often and how well it is used in practice.

For their study, Dr. Kurian and colleagues used a SEER Genetic Testing Linkage Demonstration Project in a population-based assessment of testing for cancer risk. The investigators analyzed 7-year trends in testing among all women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in Georgia or California from 2013 to 2017, reviewing testing patterns and result interpretation from 2012 to 2019.

Before analyzing the data, the investigators made the following hypotheses:

• Multigene panels (MGP) would entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.
• Testing underutilization in patients with ovarian cancer would improve over time.
• More patients would be tested at lower levels of pretest risk for PVs.
• Sociodemographic differences in testing trends would not be observed.
• Detection of PVs and VUS would increase.
• Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of VUS would diminish.

Study conduct

The investigators examined genetic tests performed from 2012 through the beginning of 2019 at major commercial laboratories and linked that information with data in the SEER registries in Georgia and California on all breast and ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017. There were few criteria for exclusion.

Genetic testing results were categorized as identifying a PV or likely PV, VUS, or benign or likely benign mutation by American College of Medical Genetics criteria. When a patient had genetic testing on more than one occasion, the most recent test was used.

If a PV was identified, the types of PVs were grouped according to the level of evidence that supported pathogenicity into the following categories:

• BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
• PVs in other genes designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as associated with breast or ovarian cancer (e.g., ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, MS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).
• PVs in other actionable genes (e.g., APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL).
• Any other tested genes.

The investigators also tabulated instances in which genetic testing identified a VUS in any gene but no PV. If a VUS was identified originally and was reclassified more recently into the “PV/likely PV” or “benign/likely benign” categories, only the resolved categorization was recorded.

The authors evaluated clinical and sociodemographic correlates of testing trends for breast and ovarian cancer, assessing the relationship between race, age, and geographic site in receipt of any test or type of test.

Among laboratories, the investigators examined trends in the number of genes tested, associations with sociodemographic factors, categories of test results, and whether trends differed by race or ethnicity.
 

Findings, by hypothesis

Hypothesis #1: MGP will entirely replace testing for BRCA1/2 only.

About 25% of tested patients with breast cancer diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 80% of those diagnosed in late 2017.

The trend for ovarian cancer was similar. About 40% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 received MGP, compared with more than 90% diagnosed in late 2017. These trends were similar in California and Georgia.

From 2012 to 2019, there was a consistent upward trend in gene number for patients with breast cancer (mean, 19) or ovarian cancer (mean, 21), from approximately 10 genes to 35 genes.
 

Hypothesis #2: Underutilization of testing in patients with ovarian cancer will improve.

Among the 187,535 patients with breast cancer and the 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in Georgia or California from 2013 through 2017, on average, testing rates increased 2% per year.

In all, 25.2% of breast cancer patients and 34.3% of ovarian cancer patients had genetic testing on one (87.3%) or more (12.7%) occasions.

Prior research suggested that, in 2013 and 2014, 31% of women with ovarian cancer had genetic testing (JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4[8]:1066-72/ J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15).

The investigators therefore concluded that underutilization of genetic testing in ovarian cancer did not improve substantially during the 7-year interval analyzed.
 

Hypothesis #3: More patients will be tested at lower levels of pretest risk.

These data were more difficult to abstract from the SEER database, but older patients were more likely to be tested in later years.

In patients older than 60 years of age (who accounted for more than 50% of both cancer cohorts), testing rates increased from 11.1% to 14.9% for breast cancer and 25.3% to 31.4% for ovarian cancer. By contrast, patients younger than 45 years of age were less than 15% of the sample and had lower testing rates over time.

There were no substantial changes in testing rates by other clinical variables. Therefore, in concert with the age-related testing trends, it is likely that women were tested for genetic mutations at increasingly lower levels of pretest risk.
 

Hypothesis #4: Sociodemographic differences in testing trends will not be observed.

Among patients with breast cancer, approximately 31% of those who had genetic testing were uninsured, 31% had Medicaid, and 26% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

For patients with ovarian cancer, approximately 28% were uninsured, 27% had Medicaid, and 39% had private insurance, Medicare, or other insurance.

The authors had previously found that less testing was associated with Black race, greater poverty, and less insurance coverage (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37[15]:1305-15). However, they noted no changes in testing rates by sociodemographic variables over time.
 

Hypothesis #5: Detection of both PVs and VUS will increase.

The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (P < .001), whereas PV yield for the two other clinically salient categories (breast or ovarian and other actionable genes) increased.

The proportion of PVs in any breast or ovarian gene increased from 1.3% to 4.6%, and the proportion in any other actionable gene increased from 0.3% to 1.3%.

For breast cancer patients, VUS-only rates increased from 8.5% in early 2013 to 22.4% in late 2017.

For ovarian cancer patients, the yield of PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 15.7% to 12.4% (P < .001), whereas the PV yield for breast or ovarian genes increased from 3.9% to 4.3%, and the yield for other actionable genes increased from 0.3% to 2.0%.

In ovarian cancer patients, the PV or VUS-only result rate increased from 30.8% in early 2013 to 43.0% in late 2017, entirely due to the increase in VUS-only rates. VUS were identified in 8.1% of patients diagnosed in early 2013 and increased to 28.3% in patients diagnosed in late 2017.
 

Hypothesis #6: Racial or ethnic disparities in rates of VUS will diminish.

Among patients with breast cancer, racial or ethnic differences in PV rates were small and did not change over time. For patients with ovarian cancer, PV rates across racial or ethnic groups diminished over time.

However, for both breast and ovarian cancer patients, there were large differences in VUS-only rates by race and ethnicity that persisted during the interval studied.

In 2017, for patients with breast cancer, VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (42.4%), Black (36.6%), and Hispanic (27.7%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.5%, P < .001).

Similar trends were noted for patients with ovarian cancer. VUS-only rates were substantially higher in Asian (47.8%), Black (46.0%), and Hispanic (36.8%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients (24.6%, P < .001).

Multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for tested patients with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the results showed no significant interaction between race or ethnicity and date. Therefore, there was no significant change in racial or ethnic differences in VUS-only results across the study period.
 

Where these findings leave clinicians in 2021

Among the patients studied, there was:

• Marked expansion in the number of genes sequenced.
• A likely modest trend toward testing patients with lower pretest risk of a PV.
• No sociodemographic differences in testing trends.
• A small increase in PV rates and a substantial increase in VUS-only rates.
• Near-complete replacement of selective testing by MGP.

For patients with breast cancer, the proportion of all PVs that were in BRCA1/2 fell substantially. Adoption of MGP testing doubled the probability of detecting a PV in other tested genes. Most of the increase was in genes with an established breast or ovarian cancer association, with fewer PVs found in other actionable genes and very few PVs in other tested genes.

Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors observed a sustained undertesting of patients with ovarian cancer. Only 34.3% performed versus nearly 100% recommended, with little change since 2014.

This finding is surprising – and tremendously disappointing – since the prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs is higher in ovarian cancer than in other cancers (Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147[2]:375-380), and germline-targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors has been approved for use since 2014.

Furthermore, insurance carriers provide coverage for genetic testing in most patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tube, and/or peritoneum.
 

Action plans: Less could be more

During the period analyzed, the increase in VUS-only results dramatically outpaced the increase in PVs.

Since there is a substantially larger volume of clinical genetic testing in non-Hispanic White patients with breast or ovarian cancer, the spectrum of normal variation is less well-defined in other racial or ethnic groups.

The study showed a widening of the “racial-ethnic VUS gap,” with Black and Asian patients having nearly twofold more VUS, although they were not tested for more genes than non-Hispanic White patients.

This is problematic on several levels. Identification of a VUS is challenging for communicating results to and recommending cascade testing for family members.

There is worrisome information regarding overtreatment or counseling of VUS patients about their results. For example, the PROMPT registry showed that 10%-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer underwent oophorectomy without a clear indication for the procedure.

Although population-based testing might augment the available data on the spectrum of normal variation in racial and ethnic minorities, it would likely exacerbate the proliferation of VUS over PVs.

It is essential to accelerate ongoing approaches to VUS reclassification.

In addition, the authors suggest that it may be time to reverse the trend in increasing the number of genes tested in MGPs. Their rationale is that, in Georgia and California, most PVs among patients with breast and ovarian cancer were identified in 20 genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PMS2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53).

If the Georgia and California data are representative of a more generalized pattern, a panel of 20 breast cancer– and/or ovarian cancer–associated genes may be ideal for maximizing the yield of clinically relevant PVs and minimizing VUS results for all patients.

Finally, defining the patient, clinician, and health care system factors that impede widespread genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients must be prioritized. As the authors suggest, quality improvement efforts should focus on getting a lot closer to testing rates of 100% for patients with ovarian cancer and building the database that will help sort VUS in minority patients into their proper context of pathogenicity, rather than adding more genes per test.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the California Department of Public Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, Genentech, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, Oncoquest, Tesaro, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.