MDedge ObGyn

When cervical cancer recurs after radical hysterectomy, the likelihood of recurrence at certain sites and the timing of recurrence may be associated with the surgical approach, according to a retrospective study.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Recurrence tended to occur sooner after minimally invasive surgery than after open abdominal surgery for cervical cancer, according to a propensity-matched analysis of data from 105 patients with recurrence.

And recurrence in the pelvic cavity and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more common after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after open surgery. Overall survival was similar between the groups, however.

The different patterns of recurrence may relate to dissemination of the disease during colpotomy, but the reasons are unknown, study author Giorgio Bogani, MD, PhD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

To examine patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Dr. Bogani of the department of gynecologic surgery at the National Cancer Institute in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from patients with cervical cancer who developed recurrence after surgery at two oncologic referral centers between 1990 and 2018 (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381).

The investigators applied a propensity-matching algorithm to reduce possible confounding factors. They matched 35 patients who had recurrence after laparoscopic hysterectomy to 70 patients who had recurrence after open surgery. The groups had similar baseline characteristics.

As in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, patients who had minimally invasive surgery were more likely to have a worse disease-free survival, compared with patients who had open surgery, Dr. Bogani said. Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a median progression-free survival of 8 months, whereas patients who underwent open abdominal procedures had a median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

Although vaginal, lymphatic, and distant recurrences were similar between the groups, a greater percentage of patients in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had recurrence in the pelvic cavity (74% vs. 34%) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs. 1.5%).

The LACC trial, which found significantly lower disease-free and overall survival with laparoscopic hysterectomy, sent a “shockwave through the gynecologic oncology community” when it was published in 2018, said Masoud Azodi, MD, in a discussion following Dr. Bogani’s presentation.

Researchers have raised questions about that trial’s design and validity, noted Dr. Azodi, director of minimally invasive and robotic surgery at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

It could be that local recurrences are attributable to surgical technique, rather than to the minimally invasive approach in itself, Dr. Azodi said. Prior studies of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer had indicated better surgical outcomes and equivalent oncologic results, relative to open surgery.

Before the LACC trial, Dr. Bogani used the minimally invasive approach for almost all surgeries. Since then, he has performed open surgeries. If he were to use a minimally invasive approach now, it would be in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Bogani said.

Dr. Bogani and Dr. Azodi had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bogani G et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.069.

When cervical cancer recurs after radical hysterectomy, the likelihood of recurrence at certain sites and the timing of recurrence may be associated with the surgical approach, according to a retrospective study.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Recurrence tended to occur sooner after minimally invasive surgery than after open abdominal surgery for cervical cancer, according to a propensity-matched analysis of data from 105 patients with recurrence.

And recurrence in the pelvic cavity and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more common after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after open surgery. Overall survival was similar between the groups, however.

The different patterns of recurrence may relate to dissemination of the disease during colpotomy, but the reasons are unknown, study author Giorgio Bogani, MD, PhD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

To examine patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Dr. Bogani of the department of gynecologic surgery at the National Cancer Institute in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from patients with cervical cancer who developed recurrence after surgery at two oncologic referral centers between 1990 and 2018 (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381).

The investigators applied a propensity-matching algorithm to reduce possible confounding factors. They matched 35 patients who had recurrence after laparoscopic hysterectomy to 70 patients who had recurrence after open surgery. The groups had similar baseline characteristics.

As in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, patients who had minimally invasive surgery were more likely to have a worse disease-free survival, compared with patients who had open surgery, Dr. Bogani said. Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a median progression-free survival of 8 months, whereas patients who underwent open abdominal procedures had a median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

Although vaginal, lymphatic, and distant recurrences were similar between the groups, a greater percentage of patients in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had recurrence in the pelvic cavity (74% vs. 34%) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs. 1.5%).

The LACC trial, which found significantly lower disease-free and overall survival with laparoscopic hysterectomy, sent a “shockwave through the gynecologic oncology community” when it was published in 2018, said Masoud Azodi, MD, in a discussion following Dr. Bogani’s presentation.

Researchers have raised questions about that trial’s design and validity, noted Dr. Azodi, director of minimally invasive and robotic surgery at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

It could be that local recurrences are attributable to surgical technique, rather than to the minimally invasive approach in itself, Dr. Azodi said. Prior studies of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer had indicated better surgical outcomes and equivalent oncologic results, relative to open surgery.

Before the LACC trial, Dr. Bogani used the minimally invasive approach for almost all surgeries. Since then, he has performed open surgeries. If he were to use a minimally invasive approach now, it would be in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Bogani said.

Dr. Bogani and Dr. Azodi had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bogani G et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.069.

When cervical cancer recurs after radical hysterectomy, the likelihood of recurrence at certain sites and the timing of recurrence may be associated with the surgical approach, according to a retrospective study.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Recurrence tended to occur sooner after minimally invasive surgery than after open abdominal surgery for cervical cancer, according to a propensity-matched analysis of data from 105 patients with recurrence.

And recurrence in the pelvic cavity and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more common after laparoscopic hysterectomy than after open surgery. Overall survival was similar between the groups, however.

The different patterns of recurrence may relate to dissemination of the disease during colpotomy, but the reasons are unknown, study author Giorgio Bogani, MD, PhD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

To examine patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Dr. Bogani of the department of gynecologic surgery at the National Cancer Institute in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from patients with cervical cancer who developed recurrence after surgery at two oncologic referral centers between 1990 and 2018 (Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381).

The investigators applied a propensity-matching algorithm to reduce possible confounding factors. They matched 35 patients who had recurrence after laparoscopic hysterectomy to 70 patients who had recurrence after open surgery. The groups had similar baseline characteristics.

As in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, patients who had minimally invasive surgery were more likely to have a worse disease-free survival, compared with patients who had open surgery, Dr. Bogani said. Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a median progression-free survival of 8 months, whereas patients who underwent open abdominal procedures had a median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

Although vaginal, lymphatic, and distant recurrences were similar between the groups, a greater percentage of patients in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had recurrence in the pelvic cavity (74% vs. 34%) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs. 1.5%).

The LACC trial, which found significantly lower disease-free and overall survival with laparoscopic hysterectomy, sent a “shockwave through the gynecologic oncology community” when it was published in 2018, said Masoud Azodi, MD, in a discussion following Dr. Bogani’s presentation.

Researchers have raised questions about that trial’s design and validity, noted Dr. Azodi, director of minimally invasive and robotic surgery at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

It could be that local recurrences are attributable to surgical technique, rather than to the minimally invasive approach in itself, Dr. Azodi said. Prior studies of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer had indicated better surgical outcomes and equivalent oncologic results, relative to open surgery.

Before the LACC trial, Dr. Bogani used the minimally invasive approach for almost all surgeries. Since then, he has performed open surgeries. If he were to use a minimally invasive approach now, it would be in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Bogani said.

Dr. Bogani and Dr. Azodi had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bogani G et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.069.

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

When I graduated from residency in 2007, Facebook had just become “a thing,” and my cohort decided to use it to keep in touch. These days, Twitter seems to be the social media platform of choice for health care professionals.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

When I started on Twitter a few years ago, it was in reaction to the current political climate. I wanted to keep track of what my favorite thinkers were writing. I was anonymous and tweeted about politics mostly. My husband was my only follower for a while.

I deanonymized when, at last year’s American College of Rheumatology meeting, I presented a poster and wanted to reach a wider audience. I could have created two different personas on Twitter, like many doctors apparently do. Initially, I resisted doing that because I am frankly too lazy to keep track of two different social media profiles, but now I resist because I see my profession as an extension of my political self, and have no problem with using my (very low) profile to amplify both my doctor voice and my human voice.

Professionally, Twitter is rewarding. It is a space for networking and for promoting one’s work. It is a fantastic learning format, as evidenced by the popularity of tweetorials. The international consortium that has worked to collect information on rheumatology patients with COVID started as an idea on Twitter. The fact that ACR Convergence 2020 abstracts are now available? I only know because of the #ACRambassadors that I follow.

But I find that I cannot separate who I am from what I do. As a rheumatologist, I build long-term relationships with patients. I cannot care for their medical conditions in isolation without also concerning myself with their nonmedical circumstances. For that reason, I have opinions that one might call humanist, and I suspect that I am not alone among rheumatologists.

I can think of three areas, broadly construed but with huge overlaps, that concern me a great deal.

First, there are things that affect all physicians: race and gender discrimination in the workplace; advancement of women in science, technology, engineering, or math; Medicare reimbursement; COVID-19 preparedness; immigration issues (an issue near and dear to me, as I am an immigrant and a foreign medical graduate); and federal funding (including funding for training programs and community health centers, funding for the National Institutes of Health, and funding for stem cell research).

Then there are the things that affect rheumatologists in particular. Access to medications and procedures is one thing. (I did say these categories hugely overlap.) If you›ve ever tried to prescribe even a drug as old as oral cyclophosphamide, you’ll have experienced the difficulty of getting it for Medicare patients. Patients who need biologics are limited by insurance contracts with pharmaceutical companies, but also by requirements such as step therapy. I am all varieties of annoyed, incredulous, and apologetic that when a patient asks me how much a treatment will cost him/her, I do not have an answer.

Speaking of pricing, don’t even get me started on pharmaceutical company price gouging. Yes, the H.P. Acthar gel may be the most egregious offender among rheumatology medications, but it’s easy to not prescribe a drug that costs $80,000 a vial and which does not do much more than prednisone does. On the other hand, I remember a time when colchicine cost $0.10 cents a pill and patients did not have to jump through hoops to get it.

And what of reproductive freedom? Our patients rely on us for advice about their childbearing options, including birth control, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy termination.

Finally, and most important, the things that affect me most are the issues that affect patients. The lowest-hanging fruit here is the abject incompetence of the federal response to the ongoing pandemic. How many of our patients’ lives have been lost or adversely affected? And what of coverage for preexisting conditions for the vast majority of our patients, whose illnesses are chronic?

While we’re at it, the fact of health insurance being tied to employment, something that seemingly no other country in the developed world does, makes living with chronic conditions outright scary, doesn’t it? It isn’t quite so easy to remain employed when one cannot get the right medications for RA.

I could go on. Gun violence and health care disparities, vaccine denialism, coverage for mental health issues, LGBTQ rights, refugee rights, police brutality … there is a seemingly endless list of things to care about. It’s exhausting.

While I do use my Twitter account to learn from colleagues and to promote work that interests me, my primary aim is to participate in civil society as a person. Critics will use “stay in your lane” as shorthand to say x professionals should stick to x (actors to acting, musicians to music, athletes to sports). If only I could. But my humanity won’t let me. Aristotle said man is a political animal; even the venerable New England Journal of Medicine has found it impossible to keep silent.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a past columnist for MDedge Rheumatology, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.
 

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

When I graduated from residency in 2007, Facebook had just become “a thing,” and my cohort decided to use it to keep in touch. These days, Twitter seems to be the social media platform of choice for health care professionals.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

When I started on Twitter a few years ago, it was in reaction to the current political climate. I wanted to keep track of what my favorite thinkers were writing. I was anonymous and tweeted about politics mostly. My husband was my only follower for a while.

I deanonymized when, at last year’s American College of Rheumatology meeting, I presented a poster and wanted to reach a wider audience. I could have created two different personas on Twitter, like many doctors apparently do. Initially, I resisted doing that because I am frankly too lazy to keep track of two different social media profiles, but now I resist because I see my profession as an extension of my political self, and have no problem with using my (very low) profile to amplify both my doctor voice and my human voice.

Professionally, Twitter is rewarding. It is a space for networking and for promoting one’s work. It is a fantastic learning format, as evidenced by the popularity of tweetorials. The international consortium that has worked to collect information on rheumatology patients with COVID started as an idea on Twitter. The fact that ACR Convergence 2020 abstracts are now available? I only know because of the #ACRambassadors that I follow.

But I find that I cannot separate who I am from what I do. As a rheumatologist, I build long-term relationships with patients. I cannot care for their medical conditions in isolation without also concerning myself with their nonmedical circumstances. For that reason, I have opinions that one might call humanist, and I suspect that I am not alone among rheumatologists.

I can think of three areas, broadly construed but with huge overlaps, that concern me a great deal.

First, there are things that affect all physicians: race and gender discrimination in the workplace; advancement of women in science, technology, engineering, or math; Medicare reimbursement; COVID-19 preparedness; immigration issues (an issue near and dear to me, as I am an immigrant and a foreign medical graduate); and federal funding (including funding for training programs and community health centers, funding for the National Institutes of Health, and funding for stem cell research).

Then there are the things that affect rheumatologists in particular. Access to medications and procedures is one thing. (I did say these categories hugely overlap.) If you›ve ever tried to prescribe even a drug as old as oral cyclophosphamide, you’ll have experienced the difficulty of getting it for Medicare patients. Patients who need biologics are limited by insurance contracts with pharmaceutical companies, but also by requirements such as step therapy. I am all varieties of annoyed, incredulous, and apologetic that when a patient asks me how much a treatment will cost him/her, I do not have an answer.

Speaking of pricing, don’t even get me started on pharmaceutical company price gouging. Yes, the H.P. Acthar gel may be the most egregious offender among rheumatology medications, but it’s easy to not prescribe a drug that costs $80,000 a vial and which does not do much more than prednisone does. On the other hand, I remember a time when colchicine cost $0.10 cents a pill and patients did not have to jump through hoops to get it.

And what of reproductive freedom? Our patients rely on us for advice about their childbearing options, including birth control, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy termination.

Finally, and most important, the things that affect me most are the issues that affect patients. The lowest-hanging fruit here is the abject incompetence of the federal response to the ongoing pandemic. How many of our patients’ lives have been lost or adversely affected? And what of coverage for preexisting conditions for the vast majority of our patients, whose illnesses are chronic?

While we’re at it, the fact of health insurance being tied to employment, something that seemingly no other country in the developed world does, makes living with chronic conditions outright scary, doesn’t it? It isn’t quite so easy to remain employed when one cannot get the right medications for RA.

I could go on. Gun violence and health care disparities, vaccine denialism, coverage for mental health issues, LGBTQ rights, refugee rights, police brutality … there is a seemingly endless list of things to care about. It’s exhausting.

While I do use my Twitter account to learn from colleagues and to promote work that interests me, my primary aim is to participate in civil society as a person. Critics will use “stay in your lane” as shorthand to say x professionals should stick to x (actors to acting, musicians to music, athletes to sports). If only I could. But my humanity won’t let me. Aristotle said man is a political animal; even the venerable New England Journal of Medicine has found it impossible to keep silent.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a past columnist for MDedge Rheumatology, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.
 

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

When I graduated from residency in 2007, Facebook had just become “a thing,” and my cohort decided to use it to keep in touch. These days, Twitter seems to be the social media platform of choice for health care professionals.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

When I started on Twitter a few years ago, it was in reaction to the current political climate. I wanted to keep track of what my favorite thinkers were writing. I was anonymous and tweeted about politics mostly. My husband was my only follower for a while.

I deanonymized when, at last year’s American College of Rheumatology meeting, I presented a poster and wanted to reach a wider audience. I could have created two different personas on Twitter, like many doctors apparently do. Initially, I resisted doing that because I am frankly too lazy to keep track of two different social media profiles, but now I resist because I see my profession as an extension of my political self, and have no problem with using my (very low) profile to amplify both my doctor voice and my human voice.

Professionally, Twitter is rewarding. It is a space for networking and for promoting one’s work. It is a fantastic learning format, as evidenced by the popularity of tweetorials. The international consortium that has worked to collect information on rheumatology patients with COVID started as an idea on Twitter. The fact that ACR Convergence 2020 abstracts are now available? I only know because of the #ACRambassadors that I follow.

But I find that I cannot separate who I am from what I do. As a rheumatologist, I build long-term relationships with patients. I cannot care for their medical conditions in isolation without also concerning myself with their nonmedical circumstances. For that reason, I have opinions that one might call humanist, and I suspect that I am not alone among rheumatologists.

I can think of three areas, broadly construed but with huge overlaps, that concern me a great deal.

First, there are things that affect all physicians: race and gender discrimination in the workplace; advancement of women in science, technology, engineering, or math; Medicare reimbursement; COVID-19 preparedness; immigration issues (an issue near and dear to me, as I am an immigrant and a foreign medical graduate); and federal funding (including funding for training programs and community health centers, funding for the National Institutes of Health, and funding for stem cell research).

Then there are the things that affect rheumatologists in particular. Access to medications and procedures is one thing. (I did say these categories hugely overlap.) If you›ve ever tried to prescribe even a drug as old as oral cyclophosphamide, you’ll have experienced the difficulty of getting it for Medicare patients. Patients who need biologics are limited by insurance contracts with pharmaceutical companies, but also by requirements such as step therapy. I am all varieties of annoyed, incredulous, and apologetic that when a patient asks me how much a treatment will cost him/her, I do not have an answer.

Speaking of pricing, don’t even get me started on pharmaceutical company price gouging. Yes, the H.P. Acthar gel may be the most egregious offender among rheumatology medications, but it’s easy to not prescribe a drug that costs $80,000 a vial and which does not do much more than prednisone does. On the other hand, I remember a time when colchicine cost $0.10 cents a pill and patients did not have to jump through hoops to get it.

And what of reproductive freedom? Our patients rely on us for advice about their childbearing options, including birth control, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy termination.

Finally, and most important, the things that affect me most are the issues that affect patients. The lowest-hanging fruit here is the abject incompetence of the federal response to the ongoing pandemic. How many of our patients’ lives have been lost or adversely affected? And what of coverage for preexisting conditions for the vast majority of our patients, whose illnesses are chronic?

While we’re at it, the fact of health insurance being tied to employment, something that seemingly no other country in the developed world does, makes living with chronic conditions outright scary, doesn’t it? It isn’t quite so easy to remain employed when one cannot get the right medications for RA.

I could go on. Gun violence and health care disparities, vaccine denialism, coverage for mental health issues, LGBTQ rights, refugee rights, police brutality … there is a seemingly endless list of things to care about. It’s exhausting.

While I do use my Twitter account to learn from colleagues and to promote work that interests me, my primary aim is to participate in civil society as a person. Critics will use “stay in your lane” as shorthand to say x professionals should stick to x (actors to acting, musicians to music, athletes to sports). If only I could. But my humanity won’t let me. Aristotle said man is a political animal; even the venerable New England Journal of Medicine has found it impossible to keep silent.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a past columnist for MDedge Rheumatology, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.
 

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

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A two-layer vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, compared with a standard one-layer closure, according to a retrospective study of approximately 3,000 patients.

The difference is driven by fewer vaginal cuff complications among patients whose surgeons used the two-layer technique, said Ann Peters, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

In light of these findings, Dr. Peters switched to using a two-layer closure. More surgeons may adopt this method, she said at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.
 

Modifiable factors

Complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy may be associated with modifiable surgical risk factors such as surgical volume, expertise, and suture material. The method of vaginal cuff closure also plays an important role, but few studies have compared multilayer and single-layer vaginal cuff closure, Dr. Peters said.

To investigate this question, Dr. Peters and colleagues analyzed data from 2,973 women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications during a 6-year period at their institution.

The analysis included 1,760 patients (59%) who underwent single-layer closure and 1,213 (41%) who underwent two-layer closure. The closure method was a matter of surgeon preference. Aside from the closure technique, other aspects of the surgeries were standardized.

The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included vaginal cuff complications during 6 months of follow-up.

The groups generally had similar baseline characteristics, although patients in the two-layer group had lower body mass index and were less likely to use tobacco.

Intraoperative complications and postoperative readmissions did not differ between the groups. The rate of postoperative complications, however, was lower in the two-layer group: 3.5% versus 5.6%. Likewise, the rate of vaginal cuff complications was lower in the two-layer group: 0.9% versus 2.5%.

No instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or mucosal separation occurred in the two-layer group, whereas 12 cases of dehiscence and 4 cases of mucosal separation occurred in the one-layer group.

Two-layer closure was associated with a decreased likelihood of complications, with an odds ratio of 0.36. Although the study is limited by its retrospective design, the surgeons had similar training and many variables, including the sutures used, were equal or standardized, Dr. Peters noted.

Avoiding rare complications

Grace M. Janik, MD, of Reproductive Specialty Center in Milwaukee, has long theorized that two-layer closure may be beneficial. This study provides data to support that theory, Dr. Janik said in a discussion following the research presentation.

Given that hysterectomy is a common procedure, “any optimization ... has implications for a large number of women,” Dr. Janik said. Although rare outcomes such as dehiscence are difficult to study, the large number of patients in this analysis allowed the investigators to detect differences between the groups.

Studies of vaginal cuff closure have yielded mixed results. For example, various studies have suggested that laparoscopic closure may be inferior to, equal to, or superior to vaginal closure. Together, the findings indicate that “what we are doing is probably more important than the route,” said Dr. Janik.

Along with multilayer closure, the use of delayed absorbable sutures and adequate tissue bites are other factors that may lead to fewer complications, Dr. Janik noted.

Dr. Peters and Dr. Janik had no relevant financial disclosures. A study coauthor is a consultant for Medtronic and Olympus. The statistical analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ali R et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.603.

A two-layer vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, compared with a standard one-layer closure, according to a retrospective study of approximately 3,000 patients.

The difference is driven by fewer vaginal cuff complications among patients whose surgeons used the two-layer technique, said Ann Peters, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

In light of these findings, Dr. Peters switched to using a two-layer closure. More surgeons may adopt this method, she said at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.
 

Modifiable factors

Complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy may be associated with modifiable surgical risk factors such as surgical volume, expertise, and suture material. The method of vaginal cuff closure also plays an important role, but few studies have compared multilayer and single-layer vaginal cuff closure, Dr. Peters said.

To investigate this question, Dr. Peters and colleagues analyzed data from 2,973 women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications during a 6-year period at their institution.

The analysis included 1,760 patients (59%) who underwent single-layer closure and 1,213 (41%) who underwent two-layer closure. The closure method was a matter of surgeon preference. Aside from the closure technique, other aspects of the surgeries were standardized.

The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included vaginal cuff complications during 6 months of follow-up.

The groups generally had similar baseline characteristics, although patients in the two-layer group had lower body mass index and were less likely to use tobacco.

Intraoperative complications and postoperative readmissions did not differ between the groups. The rate of postoperative complications, however, was lower in the two-layer group: 3.5% versus 5.6%. Likewise, the rate of vaginal cuff complications was lower in the two-layer group: 0.9% versus 2.5%.

No instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or mucosal separation occurred in the two-layer group, whereas 12 cases of dehiscence and 4 cases of mucosal separation occurred in the one-layer group.

Two-layer closure was associated with a decreased likelihood of complications, with an odds ratio of 0.36. Although the study is limited by its retrospective design, the surgeons had similar training and many variables, including the sutures used, were equal or standardized, Dr. Peters noted.

Avoiding rare complications

Grace M. Janik, MD, of Reproductive Specialty Center in Milwaukee, has long theorized that two-layer closure may be beneficial. This study provides data to support that theory, Dr. Janik said in a discussion following the research presentation.

Given that hysterectomy is a common procedure, “any optimization ... has implications for a large number of women,” Dr. Janik said. Although rare outcomes such as dehiscence are difficult to study, the large number of patients in this analysis allowed the investigators to detect differences between the groups.

Studies of vaginal cuff closure have yielded mixed results. For example, various studies have suggested that laparoscopic closure may be inferior to, equal to, or superior to vaginal closure. Together, the findings indicate that “what we are doing is probably more important than the route,” said Dr. Janik.

Along with multilayer closure, the use of delayed absorbable sutures and adequate tissue bites are other factors that may lead to fewer complications, Dr. Janik noted.

Dr. Peters and Dr. Janik had no relevant financial disclosures. A study coauthor is a consultant for Medtronic and Olympus. The statistical analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ali R et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.603.

A two-layer vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, compared with a standard one-layer closure, according to a retrospective study of approximately 3,000 patients.

The difference is driven by fewer vaginal cuff complications among patients whose surgeons used the two-layer technique, said Ann Peters, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

In light of these findings, Dr. Peters switched to using a two-layer closure. More surgeons may adopt this method, she said at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.
 

Modifiable factors

Complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy may be associated with modifiable surgical risk factors such as surgical volume, expertise, and suture material. The method of vaginal cuff closure also plays an important role, but few studies have compared multilayer and single-layer vaginal cuff closure, Dr. Peters said.

To investigate this question, Dr. Peters and colleagues analyzed data from 2,973 women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications during a 6-year period at their institution.

The analysis included 1,760 patients (59%) who underwent single-layer closure and 1,213 (41%) who underwent two-layer closure. The closure method was a matter of surgeon preference. Aside from the closure technique, other aspects of the surgeries were standardized.

The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included vaginal cuff complications during 6 months of follow-up.

The groups generally had similar baseline characteristics, although patients in the two-layer group had lower body mass index and were less likely to use tobacco.

Intraoperative complications and postoperative readmissions did not differ between the groups. The rate of postoperative complications, however, was lower in the two-layer group: 3.5% versus 5.6%. Likewise, the rate of vaginal cuff complications was lower in the two-layer group: 0.9% versus 2.5%.

No instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or mucosal separation occurred in the two-layer group, whereas 12 cases of dehiscence and 4 cases of mucosal separation occurred in the one-layer group.

Two-layer closure was associated with a decreased likelihood of complications, with an odds ratio of 0.36. Although the study is limited by its retrospective design, the surgeons had similar training and many variables, including the sutures used, were equal or standardized, Dr. Peters noted.

Avoiding rare complications

Grace M. Janik, MD, of Reproductive Specialty Center in Milwaukee, has long theorized that two-layer closure may be beneficial. This study provides data to support that theory, Dr. Janik said in a discussion following the research presentation.

Given that hysterectomy is a common procedure, “any optimization ... has implications for a large number of women,” Dr. Janik said. Although rare outcomes such as dehiscence are difficult to study, the large number of patients in this analysis allowed the investigators to detect differences between the groups.

Studies of vaginal cuff closure have yielded mixed results. For example, various studies have suggested that laparoscopic closure may be inferior to, equal to, or superior to vaginal closure. Together, the findings indicate that “what we are doing is probably more important than the route,” said Dr. Janik.

Along with multilayer closure, the use of delayed absorbable sutures and adequate tissue bites are other factors that may lead to fewer complications, Dr. Janik noted.

Dr. Peters and Dr. Janik had no relevant financial disclosures. A study coauthor is a consultant for Medtronic and Olympus. The statistical analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ali R et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.603.

Students have similar confidence levels during a simulated laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task whether they train with the current standard laparoscopic simulator or a newer gynecology-specific simulator, a randomized trial found.

Participants who trained on the gynecology-specific simulator, known as Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology (EMIG), reported higher confidence scores, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant, a researcher reported at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

The study compared EMIG with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS), a laparoscopic simulator that general surgeons launched in 2004.

In 2018, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced an FLS requirement for residents graduating after May 31, 2020. The same year, the AAGL began validating EMIG. AAGL developed the simulator in response to a growing trend for minimally invasive approaches and to provide a training tool geared toward gynecologists, said Emily G. Lin, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

A comparison of the two simulators

The simulators use different port placement and operator positioning. The operating fields within the box trainers also differ. In EMIG, laparoscopic tasks take place within a bowl that simulates a confined workspace similar to a pelvis, whereas FLS tasks take place in an open box trainer environment, Dr. Lin said.

To compare students’ self-reported confidence levels after performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task after training with EMIG or FLS, Dr. Lin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial.

The researchers recruited 45 participants who were preclinical medical students or premedical college students without prior training experience. Participants were randomized to EMIG or FLS training. After watching instructional videos about their simulator tasks and the vaginal cuff suturing task, they attempted the vaginal cuff suturing task as a pretest.

They then trained for about 2 hours on their assigned simulator. Training for both groups included practicing peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. In addition, the EMIG group trained on a running suture task, and the FLS group trained on a ligating loop task.

After training, participants retried the vaginal cuff suturing task. Participants subsequently rated their confidence during each simulation task on a 5-point Likert scale.

Confidence levels on the peg transfer (4.13 with EMIG vs. 4.10 with FLS), intracorporeal knot tying (3.0 with EMIG vs. 2.86 with FLS) and vaginal cuff suturing (2.46 with EMIG vs. 2.05 with FLS) were similar for both groups.

The study was small, included only one training session, and included only three of the five tasks for each simulator because of time and cost constraints, Dr. Lin noted.
 

Using simulation in residency training

The study was well designed and sheds light on inevitable comparisons between FLS and EMIG, Ido Sirota, MD, MHA, of New York-Presbyterian Queens, said in a discussion following the research presentation.

“The field of medical simulation has developed tremendously in the past decade,” Dr. Sirota said. “The paradigm that used to be common in our field – of see one, do one, teach one – belongs to the past. ... Current trainees need extensive practice on their surgical skills in a simulation setting before” entering the operating room.

A 2017 review found that simulation may be a useful adjunct to residency training.

And in a pilot study, EMIG’s laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems were considered to have good face validity, Dr. Sirota noted.

Using a gynecology-specific simulation may have advantages.

“In this day and age when we are trying to differentiate ourselves as a subspecialty, there is a great value to developing our own simulation-based curricula to validate our surgical skills during training, as well as for maintenance throughout our career,” Dr. Sirota said. “We as a subspecialty need specific tests tailored to our surgical procedures.”

Dr. Sirota disclosed consulting for Medtronic, Activ Surgical, Heracure, and HT, and he is on the speakers bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Lin had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lin E et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.593.

Students have similar confidence levels during a simulated laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task whether they train with the current standard laparoscopic simulator or a newer gynecology-specific simulator, a randomized trial found.

Participants who trained on the gynecology-specific simulator, known as Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology (EMIG), reported higher confidence scores, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant, a researcher reported at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

The study compared EMIG with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS), a laparoscopic simulator that general surgeons launched in 2004.

In 2018, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced an FLS requirement for residents graduating after May 31, 2020. The same year, the AAGL began validating EMIG. AAGL developed the simulator in response to a growing trend for minimally invasive approaches and to provide a training tool geared toward gynecologists, said Emily G. Lin, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

A comparison of the two simulators

The simulators use different port placement and operator positioning. The operating fields within the box trainers also differ. In EMIG, laparoscopic tasks take place within a bowl that simulates a confined workspace similar to a pelvis, whereas FLS tasks take place in an open box trainer environment, Dr. Lin said.

To compare students’ self-reported confidence levels after performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task after training with EMIG or FLS, Dr. Lin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial.

The researchers recruited 45 participants who were preclinical medical students or premedical college students without prior training experience. Participants were randomized to EMIG or FLS training. After watching instructional videos about their simulator tasks and the vaginal cuff suturing task, they attempted the vaginal cuff suturing task as a pretest.

They then trained for about 2 hours on their assigned simulator. Training for both groups included practicing peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. In addition, the EMIG group trained on a running suture task, and the FLS group trained on a ligating loop task.

After training, participants retried the vaginal cuff suturing task. Participants subsequently rated their confidence during each simulation task on a 5-point Likert scale.

Confidence levels on the peg transfer (4.13 with EMIG vs. 4.10 with FLS), intracorporeal knot tying (3.0 with EMIG vs. 2.86 with FLS) and vaginal cuff suturing (2.46 with EMIG vs. 2.05 with FLS) were similar for both groups.

The study was small, included only one training session, and included only three of the five tasks for each simulator because of time and cost constraints, Dr. Lin noted.
 

Using simulation in residency training

The study was well designed and sheds light on inevitable comparisons between FLS and EMIG, Ido Sirota, MD, MHA, of New York-Presbyterian Queens, said in a discussion following the research presentation.

“The field of medical simulation has developed tremendously in the past decade,” Dr. Sirota said. “The paradigm that used to be common in our field – of see one, do one, teach one – belongs to the past. ... Current trainees need extensive practice on their surgical skills in a simulation setting before” entering the operating room.

A 2017 review found that simulation may be a useful adjunct to residency training.

And in a pilot study, EMIG’s laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems were considered to have good face validity, Dr. Sirota noted.

Using a gynecology-specific simulation may have advantages.

“In this day and age when we are trying to differentiate ourselves as a subspecialty, there is a great value to developing our own simulation-based curricula to validate our surgical skills during training, as well as for maintenance throughout our career,” Dr. Sirota said. “We as a subspecialty need specific tests tailored to our surgical procedures.”

Dr. Sirota disclosed consulting for Medtronic, Activ Surgical, Heracure, and HT, and he is on the speakers bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Lin had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lin E et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.593.

Students have similar confidence levels during a simulated laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task whether they train with the current standard laparoscopic simulator or a newer gynecology-specific simulator, a randomized trial found.

Participants who trained on the gynecology-specific simulator, known as Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology (EMIG), reported higher confidence scores, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant, a researcher reported at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

The study compared EMIG with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS), a laparoscopic simulator that general surgeons launched in 2004.

In 2018, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced an FLS requirement for residents graduating after May 31, 2020. The same year, the AAGL began validating EMIG. AAGL developed the simulator in response to a growing trend for minimally invasive approaches and to provide a training tool geared toward gynecologists, said Emily G. Lin, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

A comparison of the two simulators

The simulators use different port placement and operator positioning. The operating fields within the box trainers also differ. In EMIG, laparoscopic tasks take place within a bowl that simulates a confined workspace similar to a pelvis, whereas FLS tasks take place in an open box trainer environment, Dr. Lin said.

To compare students’ self-reported confidence levels after performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task after training with EMIG or FLS, Dr. Lin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial.

The researchers recruited 45 participants who were preclinical medical students or premedical college students without prior training experience. Participants were randomized to EMIG or FLS training. After watching instructional videos about their simulator tasks and the vaginal cuff suturing task, they attempted the vaginal cuff suturing task as a pretest.

They then trained for about 2 hours on their assigned simulator. Training for both groups included practicing peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. In addition, the EMIG group trained on a running suture task, and the FLS group trained on a ligating loop task.

After training, participants retried the vaginal cuff suturing task. Participants subsequently rated their confidence during each simulation task on a 5-point Likert scale.

Confidence levels on the peg transfer (4.13 with EMIG vs. 4.10 with FLS), intracorporeal knot tying (3.0 with EMIG vs. 2.86 with FLS) and vaginal cuff suturing (2.46 with EMIG vs. 2.05 with FLS) were similar for both groups.

The study was small, included only one training session, and included only three of the five tasks for each simulator because of time and cost constraints, Dr. Lin noted.
 

Using simulation in residency training

The study was well designed and sheds light on inevitable comparisons between FLS and EMIG, Ido Sirota, MD, MHA, of New York-Presbyterian Queens, said in a discussion following the research presentation.

“The field of medical simulation has developed tremendously in the past decade,” Dr. Sirota said. “The paradigm that used to be common in our field – of see one, do one, teach one – belongs to the past. ... Current trainees need extensive practice on their surgical skills in a simulation setting before” entering the operating room.

A 2017 review found that simulation may be a useful adjunct to residency training.

And in a pilot study, EMIG’s laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems were considered to have good face validity, Dr. Sirota noted.

Using a gynecology-specific simulation may have advantages.

“In this day and age when we are trying to differentiate ourselves as a subspecialty, there is a great value to developing our own simulation-based curricula to validate our surgical skills during training, as well as for maintenance throughout our career,” Dr. Sirota said. “We as a subspecialty need specific tests tailored to our surgical procedures.”

Dr. Sirota disclosed consulting for Medtronic, Activ Surgical, Heracure, and HT, and he is on the speakers bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Lin had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lin E et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.593.