Ob.Gyn. News

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was associated with a nearly doubled risk of developing psoriasis in a propensity score–matched analysis conducted in Taiwan.

PCOS is characterized by androgen elevation that can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which have also been associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. Previous retrospective analyses have suggested an increased risk of psoriasis associated with PCOS, and psoriasis patients with PCOS have been reported to have more severe skin lesions, compared with those who do not have PCOS.

“The incidence of psoriasis is indeed higher in the PCOS group than in the control group, and the comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome did not modify the adjusted hazard ratio,” said Ming-Li Chen, during her presentation of the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr. Chen is at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan.

The researchers analyzed 1 million randomly selected records from Taiwan’s Longitudinal Health Insurance database, a subset of the country’s National Health Insurance Program. Between 2000 and 2012, they identified a case group with at least three outpatient diagnoses or one inpatient diagnosis of PCOS; they then compared each with four patients who did not have PCOS who were matched by age and index year. The mean age in both groups was about 27 years.

The mean follow-up times were 6.99 years for 4,707 cases and 6.94 years for 18,828 controls. Comorbidities were slightly higher in the PCOS group, including asthma (6.7% vs. 4.9%; P less than .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14% vs. 11%; P less than .001), chronic liver disease (8.0% vs. 5.0%; P less than .001), diabetes mellitus (3.0% vs. 1.4%; P less than .001), hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.5%; P less than .001), hyperlipidemia (5.4% vs. 2.5%; P less than .001), depression (5.4% vs. 3.9%; P less than .001), and sleep apnea (0.23% vs. 0.10%; P = .040).

There was a higher cumulative incidence of psoriasis in the PCOS group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.44). Other factors associated with increased risk of psoriasis were advanced age (greater than 50 years old; aHR, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.8-110.7) and having a cancer diagnosis (aHR, 11.72; 95% CI, 2.87-47.9).

When PCOS patients were stratified by age, the researchers noted a higher risk of psoriasis among those 20 years or younger (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.16-13.9) than among those aged 20-50 years (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29). Among those older than 50 years, there was no significantly increased risk, although the number of psoriasis diagnoses and population sizes were small in the latter category. Among patients with PCOS, a cancer diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of psoriasis.

The mechanisms underlying the association between PCOS and psoriasis should be studied further, she noted.

Following Dr. Chen’s prerecorded presentation, there was a live discussion session led by Alice Gottlieb, MD, PhD, medical director of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Dermatology, New York, and Ennio Lubrano, MD, associate professor of rheumatology at the University of Molise (Italy). Dr. Gottlieb noted that the study did not appear to account for weight in the association between PCOS and psoriasis, since heavier people are known to be at greater risk of developing psoriasis. Dr. Chen acknowledged that the study had no records of BMI or weight.

Dr. Gottlieb also wondered if treatment of PCOS led to any improvements in psoriasis in patients with the two diagnoses. “If we treat PCOS, does the psoriasis get better?” Again, the study did not address the question. “We didn’t follow up on therapies,” Dr. Chen said.

Dr. Chen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottlieb is a consultant, advisory board member and/or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB Pharma and Xbiotech. She has received research or educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis and Xbiotech.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was associated with a nearly doubled risk of developing psoriasis in a propensity score–matched analysis conducted in Taiwan.

PCOS is characterized by androgen elevation that can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which have also been associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. Previous retrospective analyses have suggested an increased risk of psoriasis associated with PCOS, and psoriasis patients with PCOS have been reported to have more severe skin lesions, compared with those who do not have PCOS.

“The incidence of psoriasis is indeed higher in the PCOS group than in the control group, and the comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome did not modify the adjusted hazard ratio,” said Ming-Li Chen, during her presentation of the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr. Chen is at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan.

The researchers analyzed 1 million randomly selected records from Taiwan’s Longitudinal Health Insurance database, a subset of the country’s National Health Insurance Program. Between 2000 and 2012, they identified a case group with at least three outpatient diagnoses or one inpatient diagnosis of PCOS; they then compared each with four patients who did not have PCOS who were matched by age and index year. The mean age in both groups was about 27 years.

The mean follow-up times were 6.99 years for 4,707 cases and 6.94 years for 18,828 controls. Comorbidities were slightly higher in the PCOS group, including asthma (6.7% vs. 4.9%; P less than .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14% vs. 11%; P less than .001), chronic liver disease (8.0% vs. 5.0%; P less than .001), diabetes mellitus (3.0% vs. 1.4%; P less than .001), hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.5%; P less than .001), hyperlipidemia (5.4% vs. 2.5%; P less than .001), depression (5.4% vs. 3.9%; P less than .001), and sleep apnea (0.23% vs. 0.10%; P = .040).

There was a higher cumulative incidence of psoriasis in the PCOS group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.44). Other factors associated with increased risk of psoriasis were advanced age (greater than 50 years old; aHR, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.8-110.7) and having a cancer diagnosis (aHR, 11.72; 95% CI, 2.87-47.9).

When PCOS patients were stratified by age, the researchers noted a higher risk of psoriasis among those 20 years or younger (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.16-13.9) than among those aged 20-50 years (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29). Among those older than 50 years, there was no significantly increased risk, although the number of psoriasis diagnoses and population sizes were small in the latter category. Among patients with PCOS, a cancer diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of psoriasis.

The mechanisms underlying the association between PCOS and psoriasis should be studied further, she noted.

Following Dr. Chen’s prerecorded presentation, there was a live discussion session led by Alice Gottlieb, MD, PhD, medical director of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Dermatology, New York, and Ennio Lubrano, MD, associate professor of rheumatology at the University of Molise (Italy). Dr. Gottlieb noted that the study did not appear to account for weight in the association between PCOS and psoriasis, since heavier people are known to be at greater risk of developing psoriasis. Dr. Chen acknowledged that the study had no records of BMI or weight.

Dr. Gottlieb also wondered if treatment of PCOS led to any improvements in psoriasis in patients with the two diagnoses. “If we treat PCOS, does the psoriasis get better?” Again, the study did not address the question. “We didn’t follow up on therapies,” Dr. Chen said.

Dr. Chen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottlieb is a consultant, advisory board member and/or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB Pharma and Xbiotech. She has received research or educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis and Xbiotech.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was associated with a nearly doubled risk of developing psoriasis in a propensity score–matched analysis conducted in Taiwan.

PCOS is characterized by androgen elevation that can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which have also been associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. Previous retrospective analyses have suggested an increased risk of psoriasis associated with PCOS, and psoriasis patients with PCOS have been reported to have more severe skin lesions, compared with those who do not have PCOS.

“The incidence of psoriasis is indeed higher in the PCOS group than in the control group, and the comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome did not modify the adjusted hazard ratio,” said Ming-Li Chen, during her presentation of the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr. Chen is at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan.

The researchers analyzed 1 million randomly selected records from Taiwan’s Longitudinal Health Insurance database, a subset of the country’s National Health Insurance Program. Between 2000 and 2012, they identified a case group with at least three outpatient diagnoses or one inpatient diagnosis of PCOS; they then compared each with four patients who did not have PCOS who were matched by age and index year. The mean age in both groups was about 27 years.

The mean follow-up times were 6.99 years for 4,707 cases and 6.94 years for 18,828 controls. Comorbidities were slightly higher in the PCOS group, including asthma (6.7% vs. 4.9%; P less than .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14% vs. 11%; P less than .001), chronic liver disease (8.0% vs. 5.0%; P less than .001), diabetes mellitus (3.0% vs. 1.4%; P less than .001), hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.5%; P less than .001), hyperlipidemia (5.4% vs. 2.5%; P less than .001), depression (5.4% vs. 3.9%; P less than .001), and sleep apnea (0.23% vs. 0.10%; P = .040).

There was a higher cumulative incidence of psoriasis in the PCOS group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.44). Other factors associated with increased risk of psoriasis were advanced age (greater than 50 years old; aHR, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.8-110.7) and having a cancer diagnosis (aHR, 11.72; 95% CI, 2.87-47.9).

When PCOS patients were stratified by age, the researchers noted a higher risk of psoriasis among those 20 years or younger (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.16-13.9) than among those aged 20-50 years (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29). Among those older than 50 years, there was no significantly increased risk, although the number of psoriasis diagnoses and population sizes were small in the latter category. Among patients with PCOS, a cancer diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of psoriasis.

The mechanisms underlying the association between PCOS and psoriasis should be studied further, she noted.

Following Dr. Chen’s prerecorded presentation, there was a live discussion session led by Alice Gottlieb, MD, PhD, medical director of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Dermatology, New York, and Ennio Lubrano, MD, associate professor of rheumatology at the University of Molise (Italy). Dr. Gottlieb noted that the study did not appear to account for weight in the association between PCOS and psoriasis, since heavier people are known to be at greater risk of developing psoriasis. Dr. Chen acknowledged that the study had no records of BMI or weight.

Dr. Gottlieb also wondered if treatment of PCOS led to any improvements in psoriasis in patients with the two diagnoses. “If we treat PCOS, does the psoriasis get better?” Again, the study did not address the question. “We didn’t follow up on therapies,” Dr. Chen said.

Dr. Chen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottlieb is a consultant, advisory board member and/or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB Pharma and Xbiotech. She has received research or educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis and Xbiotech.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeat bone mineral density testing did not improve fracture-risk prediction in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women beyond baseline BMD measurement alone, according to new 12-year follow-up data.

Thinkstock

On the basis of the findings, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors recommend against routine repeat testing in postmenopausal women. Other experts, however, caution that the results may not be so broadly generalizable.

For the investigation, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues analyzed data from 7,419 women enrolled in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative study and who underwent baseline and repeat dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) between 1993 and 2010. The researchers excluded patients who reported using bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators, those with a history of major osteoporotic fracture, or those who lacked follow-up visits. The mean body mass index (BMI) of the study population was 28.7 kg/m², and the mean age was 66.1 years.

The mean follow-up after the repeat BMD test was 9.0 years, during which period 732 (9.9%) of the women experienced a major osteoporotic fracture, and 139 (1.9%) experienced hip fractures.

To determine whether repeat testing improved fracture risk discrimination, the researchers calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD.

With respect to any major osteoporotic fracture risk, the AUROC values for total hip BMD at baseline, change in total hip BMD at 3 years, and the combination of the two, respectively, were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.63), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63). For hip fracture risk, the respective AUROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77), the authors reported.

Similar results were observed for femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD measurements. The associations between BMD changes and fracture risk were consistent across age, race, ethnicity, BMI, and baseline BMD T-score subgroups.

Although baseline BMD and change in BMD were independently associated with incident fracture, the association was stronger for lower baseline BMD than the 3-year absolute change in BMD, the authors stated.

The findings, which are consistent with those of previous investigations that involved older adults, are notable because of the age range of the population, according to the authors. “To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that addressed this issue in a study cohort that included younger postmenopausal U.S. women,” they wrote. “Forty-four percent of our study population was younger than 65 years.”

The authors wrote that, given the lack of benefit associated with repeat BMD testing, such tests should no longer be routinely performed. “Our findings further suggest that resources should be devoted to increasing the underuse of baseline BMD testing among women aged [between] 65 and 85 years, one-quarter of whom do not receive an initial BMD test.”

Loyola University

However, some experts are not comfortable with the broad recommendation to skip repeat testing in the general population. “This is a great study, and it gives important information. However, we know, even in the real world, that patients can lose BMD in this time frame and not really fracture. This does not mean that they will not fracture further down the road,” said Pauline Camacho, MD, director of Loyola University Medical Center’s Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center in Chicago,. “The value of doing BMD goes beyond predicting fracture risk. It also helps assess patient compliance and detect the presence of uncorrected secondary causes of osteoporosis that are limiting the response to therapy, including failure to absorb oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D deficiency, or hyperparathyroidism.”

In addition, patients for whom treatment is initiated would want to know whether it’s working. “Seeing the BMD response to therapy is helpful to both clinicians and patients,” Dr. Camacho said in an interview.

Another concern is the study population. “The study was designed to assess the clinical utility of repeating a screening BMD test in a population of low-risk women -- older postmenopausal women with remarkably good BMD on initial testing,” according to E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, vice president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and director of the New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. “Not surprisingly, with what we know about the expected age-related rate of bone loss, there was only a modest decrease in BMD and little clinical utility in repeating DXA in 3 years. However, repeat testing is an important component in the care of many patients seen in clinical practice.”

UNM Health Sciences Center

There are numerous situations in clinical practice in which repeat BMD testing can enhance patient care and potentially improve outcomes, Dr. Lewiecki said in an interview. “Repeating BMD 1-2 years after starting osteoporosis therapy is a useful way to assess response and determine whether the patient is on a pathway to achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk with a strategy called treat to target.”

Additionally, patients starting high-dose glucocorticoids who are at high risk for rapid bone loss may benefit from undergoing baseline BMD testing and having a follow-up test 1 year later or even sooner, he said. Further, for early postmenopausal women, the rate of bone loss may be accelerated and may be faster than age-related bone loss later in life. For this reason, “close monitoring of BMD may be used to determine when a treatment threshold has been crossed and pharmacological therapy is indicated.”

The most important message from this study for clinicians and healthcare policymakers is not the relative value of the repeat BMD testing, Dr. Lewiecki stated. Rather, it is the call to action regarding the underuse of BMD testing. “There is a global crisis in the care of osteoporosis that is characterized by underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients at risk for fracture. Many patients who could benefit from treatment to reduce fracture risk are not receiving it, resulting in disability and deaths from fractures that might have been prevented. We need more bone density testing in appropriately selected patients to identify high-risk patients and intervene to reduce fracture risk,” he said. “DXA is an inexpensive and highly versatile clinical tool with many applications in clinical practice. When used wisely, it can be extraordinarily useful to identify and monitor high-risk patients, with the goal of reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures.”

The barriers to performing baseline BMD measurement in this population are poorly understood and not well researched, Dr. Crandall said in an interview. “I expect that they relate to the multiple competing demands on primary care physicians, who are, for example, trying to juggle hypertension, a sprained ankle, diabetes, and complex social situations simultaneously with identifying appropriate candidates for osteoporosis screening and considering numerous other screening guidelines.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The study authors reported relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright, TherapeuticsMD, AbbVie, Radius, and Allergan. Dr. Camacho reported relationships with Amgen and Shire. Dr. Lewiecki reported relationships with Amgen, Radius Health, Alexion, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Mereo, and Bindex.

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

Repeat bone mineral density testing did not improve fracture-risk prediction in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women beyond baseline BMD measurement alone, according to new 12-year follow-up data.

Thinkstock

On the basis of the findings, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors recommend against routine repeat testing in postmenopausal women. Other experts, however, caution that the results may not be so broadly generalizable.

For the investigation, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues analyzed data from 7,419 women enrolled in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative study and who underwent baseline and repeat dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) between 1993 and 2010. The researchers excluded patients who reported using bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators, those with a history of major osteoporotic fracture, or those who lacked follow-up visits. The mean body mass index (BMI) of the study population was 28.7 kg/m², and the mean age was 66.1 years.

The mean follow-up after the repeat BMD test was 9.0 years, during which period 732 (9.9%) of the women experienced a major osteoporotic fracture, and 139 (1.9%) experienced hip fractures.

To determine whether repeat testing improved fracture risk discrimination, the researchers calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD.

With respect to any major osteoporotic fracture risk, the AUROC values for total hip BMD at baseline, change in total hip BMD at 3 years, and the combination of the two, respectively, were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.63), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63). For hip fracture risk, the respective AUROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77), the authors reported.

Similar results were observed for femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD measurements. The associations between BMD changes and fracture risk were consistent across age, race, ethnicity, BMI, and baseline BMD T-score subgroups.

Although baseline BMD and change in BMD were independently associated with incident fracture, the association was stronger for lower baseline BMD than the 3-year absolute change in BMD, the authors stated.

The findings, which are consistent with those of previous investigations that involved older adults, are notable because of the age range of the population, according to the authors. “To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that addressed this issue in a study cohort that included younger postmenopausal U.S. women,” they wrote. “Forty-four percent of our study population was younger than 65 years.”

The authors wrote that, given the lack of benefit associated with repeat BMD testing, such tests should no longer be routinely performed. “Our findings further suggest that resources should be devoted to increasing the underuse of baseline BMD testing among women aged [between] 65 and 85 years, one-quarter of whom do not receive an initial BMD test.”

Loyola University

However, some experts are not comfortable with the broad recommendation to skip repeat testing in the general population. “This is a great study, and it gives important information. However, we know, even in the real world, that patients can lose BMD in this time frame and not really fracture. This does not mean that they will not fracture further down the road,” said Pauline Camacho, MD, director of Loyola University Medical Center’s Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center in Chicago,. “The value of doing BMD goes beyond predicting fracture risk. It also helps assess patient compliance and detect the presence of uncorrected secondary causes of osteoporosis that are limiting the response to therapy, including failure to absorb oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D deficiency, or hyperparathyroidism.”

In addition, patients for whom treatment is initiated would want to know whether it’s working. “Seeing the BMD response to therapy is helpful to both clinicians and patients,” Dr. Camacho said in an interview.

Another concern is the study population. “The study was designed to assess the clinical utility of repeating a screening BMD test in a population of low-risk women -- older postmenopausal women with remarkably good BMD on initial testing,” according to E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, vice president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and director of the New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. “Not surprisingly, with what we know about the expected age-related rate of bone loss, there was only a modest decrease in BMD and little clinical utility in repeating DXA in 3 years. However, repeat testing is an important component in the care of many patients seen in clinical practice.”

UNM Health Sciences Center

There are numerous situations in clinical practice in which repeat BMD testing can enhance patient care and potentially improve outcomes, Dr. Lewiecki said in an interview. “Repeating BMD 1-2 years after starting osteoporosis therapy is a useful way to assess response and determine whether the patient is on a pathway to achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk with a strategy called treat to target.”

Additionally, patients starting high-dose glucocorticoids who are at high risk for rapid bone loss may benefit from undergoing baseline BMD testing and having a follow-up test 1 year later or even sooner, he said. Further, for early postmenopausal women, the rate of bone loss may be accelerated and may be faster than age-related bone loss later in life. For this reason, “close monitoring of BMD may be used to determine when a treatment threshold has been crossed and pharmacological therapy is indicated.”

The most important message from this study for clinicians and healthcare policymakers is not the relative value of the repeat BMD testing, Dr. Lewiecki stated. Rather, it is the call to action regarding the underuse of BMD testing. “There is a global crisis in the care of osteoporosis that is characterized by underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients at risk for fracture. Many patients who could benefit from treatment to reduce fracture risk are not receiving it, resulting in disability and deaths from fractures that might have been prevented. We need more bone density testing in appropriately selected patients to identify high-risk patients and intervene to reduce fracture risk,” he said. “DXA is an inexpensive and highly versatile clinical tool with many applications in clinical practice. When used wisely, it can be extraordinarily useful to identify and monitor high-risk patients, with the goal of reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures.”

The barriers to performing baseline BMD measurement in this population are poorly understood and not well researched, Dr. Crandall said in an interview. “I expect that they relate to the multiple competing demands on primary care physicians, who are, for example, trying to juggle hypertension, a sprained ankle, diabetes, and complex social situations simultaneously with identifying appropriate candidates for osteoporosis screening and considering numerous other screening guidelines.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The study authors reported relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright, TherapeuticsMD, AbbVie, Radius, and Allergan. Dr. Camacho reported relationships with Amgen and Shire. Dr. Lewiecki reported relationships with Amgen, Radius Health, Alexion, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Mereo, and Bindex.

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

Repeat bone mineral density testing did not improve fracture-risk prediction in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women beyond baseline BMD measurement alone, according to new 12-year follow-up data.

Thinkstock

On the basis of the findings, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors recommend against routine repeat testing in postmenopausal women. Other experts, however, caution that the results may not be so broadly generalizable.

For the investigation, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues analyzed data from 7,419 women enrolled in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative study and who underwent baseline and repeat dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) between 1993 and 2010. The researchers excluded patients who reported using bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators, those with a history of major osteoporotic fracture, or those who lacked follow-up visits. The mean body mass index (BMI) of the study population was 28.7 kg/m², and the mean age was 66.1 years.

The mean follow-up after the repeat BMD test was 9.0 years, during which period 732 (9.9%) of the women experienced a major osteoporotic fracture, and 139 (1.9%) experienced hip fractures.

To determine whether repeat testing improved fracture risk discrimination, the researchers calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD.

With respect to any major osteoporotic fracture risk, the AUROC values for total hip BMD at baseline, change in total hip BMD at 3 years, and the combination of the two, respectively, were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.63), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63). For hip fracture risk, the respective AUROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77), the authors reported.

Similar results were observed for femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD measurements. The associations between BMD changes and fracture risk were consistent across age, race, ethnicity, BMI, and baseline BMD T-score subgroups.

Although baseline BMD and change in BMD were independently associated with incident fracture, the association was stronger for lower baseline BMD than the 3-year absolute change in BMD, the authors stated.

The findings, which are consistent with those of previous investigations that involved older adults, are notable because of the age range of the population, according to the authors. “To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that addressed this issue in a study cohort that included younger postmenopausal U.S. women,” they wrote. “Forty-four percent of our study population was younger than 65 years.”

The authors wrote that, given the lack of benefit associated with repeat BMD testing, such tests should no longer be routinely performed. “Our findings further suggest that resources should be devoted to increasing the underuse of baseline BMD testing among women aged [between] 65 and 85 years, one-quarter of whom do not receive an initial BMD test.”

Loyola University

However, some experts are not comfortable with the broad recommendation to skip repeat testing in the general population. “This is a great study, and it gives important information. However, we know, even in the real world, that patients can lose BMD in this time frame and not really fracture. This does not mean that they will not fracture further down the road,” said Pauline Camacho, MD, director of Loyola University Medical Center’s Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center in Chicago,. “The value of doing BMD goes beyond predicting fracture risk. It also helps assess patient compliance and detect the presence of uncorrected secondary causes of osteoporosis that are limiting the response to therapy, including failure to absorb oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D deficiency, or hyperparathyroidism.”

In addition, patients for whom treatment is initiated would want to know whether it’s working. “Seeing the BMD response to therapy is helpful to both clinicians and patients,” Dr. Camacho said in an interview.

Another concern is the study population. “The study was designed to assess the clinical utility of repeating a screening BMD test in a population of low-risk women -- older postmenopausal women with remarkably good BMD on initial testing,” according to E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, vice president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and director of the New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. “Not surprisingly, with what we know about the expected age-related rate of bone loss, there was only a modest decrease in BMD and little clinical utility in repeating DXA in 3 years. However, repeat testing is an important component in the care of many patients seen in clinical practice.”

UNM Health Sciences Center

There are numerous situations in clinical practice in which repeat BMD testing can enhance patient care and potentially improve outcomes, Dr. Lewiecki said in an interview. “Repeating BMD 1-2 years after starting osteoporosis therapy is a useful way to assess response and determine whether the patient is on a pathway to achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk with a strategy called treat to target.”

Additionally, patients starting high-dose glucocorticoids who are at high risk for rapid bone loss may benefit from undergoing baseline BMD testing and having a follow-up test 1 year later or even sooner, he said. Further, for early postmenopausal women, the rate of bone loss may be accelerated and may be faster than age-related bone loss later in life. For this reason, “close monitoring of BMD may be used to determine when a treatment threshold has been crossed and pharmacological therapy is indicated.”

The most important message from this study for clinicians and healthcare policymakers is not the relative value of the repeat BMD testing, Dr. Lewiecki stated. Rather, it is the call to action regarding the underuse of BMD testing. “There is a global crisis in the care of osteoporosis that is characterized by underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients at risk for fracture. Many patients who could benefit from treatment to reduce fracture risk are not receiving it, resulting in disability and deaths from fractures that might have been prevented. We need more bone density testing in appropriately selected patients to identify high-risk patients and intervene to reduce fracture risk,” he said. “DXA is an inexpensive and highly versatile clinical tool with many applications in clinical practice. When used wisely, it can be extraordinarily useful to identify and monitor high-risk patients, with the goal of reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures.”

The barriers to performing baseline BMD measurement in this population are poorly understood and not well researched, Dr. Crandall said in an interview. “I expect that they relate to the multiple competing demands on primary care physicians, who are, for example, trying to juggle hypertension, a sprained ankle, diabetes, and complex social situations simultaneously with identifying appropriate candidates for osteoporosis screening and considering numerous other screening guidelines.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The study authors reported relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright, TherapeuticsMD, AbbVie, Radius, and Allergan. Dr. Camacho reported relationships with Amgen and Shire. Dr. Lewiecki reported relationships with Amgen, Radius Health, Alexion, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Mereo, and Bindex.

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

Women with a high body mass index who request tubal ligation immediately post partum face no increased risk of complications, compared with normal-weight woman, according to a large, single-institution, retrospective study.

“Our study underscores the overall safety of postpartum tubal ligation among overweight and obese women,” John J. Byrne, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas, Dallas, reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Even among women in the highest BMI category, this procedure is safe and effective,” they noted, despite previous studies identifying body mass index (BMI) higher than 40 kg/m² “as a significant barrier to this procedure.”

“For the woman who is appropriately counseled and desires permanent contraception, BMI should not impede her access to the procedure,” Dr. Byrne and associates said.

The study included 3,670 women undergoing postpartum tubal ligation after a vaginal delivery between August 2015 and March 2019 at Parkland Hospital, which is operated by the Dallas County Hospital District.

The method used was the Parkland-type tubal ligation – a bilateral midsegment partial salpingectomy performed through a 2-3 cm infraumbilical incision. Women were excluded if they were planning additional surgery, such as ovarian cyst removal or hernia repair at the same time.

Comparing a composite outcome of surgical complications and subsequent pregnancies over a 5-year follow-up, the study found no differences across all maternal BMI categories, which were stratified as: underweight or normal weight (BMI, 24.9 or lower), overweight (25-29.9), class I obesity (30-34.9), class II obesity (35-39.9), and class III obesity (40 or higher).

A full breakdown of the composite morbidity included “blood transfusion, aborted procedure, intraoperative complications (bleeding requiring additional surgery, extension of incision), anesthetic complication (high spinal, bronchospasm, postdural puncture headaches requiring blood patch, and allergic reaction to anesthetic), postoperative complication (deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, ileus, small bowel obstruction, acute intestinal herniation, peritonitis), return to operating room, incomplete transection of fallopian tube, and subsequent pregnancy,” they reported.

Among the study subjects, the mean BMI was 32.2, with 263 being underweight or normal weight at the time of admission, 1,044 being overweight, 1,371 having class I obesity, 689 having class II obesity, 303 having class III obesity, and 11 patients classified as supermorbidly obese (a BMI of 50 or higher).

Overall, “composite morbidity occurred in 49 (1.3%) women and was not significantly different across BMI categories (P = .07),” noted the authors.

More specifically, there were 19 (1.5%) composite morbidity events in the nonobese cohort and 30 (1.3%) in the obese cohort. “Even among women who had undergone prior abdominal surgery, there was no association of BMI with the rate of procedural complication,” Dr. Byrne and associates added.

The subsequent pregnancy rate was 1.63 per 1,000 procedures performed, which is “significantly lower than previously reported estimates,” they noted. In total, there were six subsequent pregnancies in the cohort: three full term, two ectopic, and one of unknown location.

“Although there was variability in operative time in all BMI categories, this is likely not clinically relevant as the range in operative time overlapped across groups,” reported the authors. “Other surgical metrics, such as estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization after tubal ligation, were found to be no different between BMI categories.”

Their findings “can be generalized to other tubal ligation forms, such as modified Pomeroy and even possibly salpingectomy, if the minilaparotomy incision is the same,” Dr. Byrne and colleagues suggested.

“This innovative study adds an important practical perspective to the literature on postpartum permanent contraception – a finding that should be reassuring for obstetrician/gynecologists,” commented Eve Espey, MD MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Women with high BMI are significantly less likely to receive desired postvaginal delivery tubal ligation, compared to lower-BMI women, as documented in several prior studies,” said Dr. Espey, who is professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“Although those studies did not explore the reasons for nonfulfillment, intuitively concerns about complications or inability to complete the procedure are the most likely explanations,” she added.

“Although this study is limited by its retrospective nature, the smaller number of women in the highest BMI category, and lack of information on patients with unfulfilled requests for tubal ligation, it is overall well designed and should serve to encourage physicians to proceed with postvaginal delivery tubal ligation in patients across all BMI categories,” Dr. Espey concluded.

The study received no external funding; Dr. Byrne and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Espey is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, and said she has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Byrne JJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:342-8.
 

Women with a high body mass index who request tubal ligation immediately post partum face no increased risk of complications, compared with normal-weight woman, according to a large, single-institution, retrospective study.

“Our study underscores the overall safety of postpartum tubal ligation among overweight and obese women,” John J. Byrne, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas, Dallas, reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Even among women in the highest BMI category, this procedure is safe and effective,” they noted, despite previous studies identifying body mass index (BMI) higher than 40 kg/m² “as a significant barrier to this procedure.”

“For the woman who is appropriately counseled and desires permanent contraception, BMI should not impede her access to the procedure,” Dr. Byrne and associates said.

The study included 3,670 women undergoing postpartum tubal ligation after a vaginal delivery between August 2015 and March 2019 at Parkland Hospital, which is operated by the Dallas County Hospital District.

The method used was the Parkland-type tubal ligation – a bilateral midsegment partial salpingectomy performed through a 2-3 cm infraumbilical incision. Women were excluded if they were planning additional surgery, such as ovarian cyst removal or hernia repair at the same time.

Comparing a composite outcome of surgical complications and subsequent pregnancies over a 5-year follow-up, the study found no differences across all maternal BMI categories, which were stratified as: underweight or normal weight (BMI, 24.9 or lower), overweight (25-29.9), class I obesity (30-34.9), class II obesity (35-39.9), and class III obesity (40 or higher).

A full breakdown of the composite morbidity included “blood transfusion, aborted procedure, intraoperative complications (bleeding requiring additional surgery, extension of incision), anesthetic complication (high spinal, bronchospasm, postdural puncture headaches requiring blood patch, and allergic reaction to anesthetic), postoperative complication (deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, ileus, small bowel obstruction, acute intestinal herniation, peritonitis), return to operating room, incomplete transection of fallopian tube, and subsequent pregnancy,” they reported.

Among the study subjects, the mean BMI was 32.2, with 263 being underweight or normal weight at the time of admission, 1,044 being overweight, 1,371 having class I obesity, 689 having class II obesity, 303 having class III obesity, and 11 patients classified as supermorbidly obese (a BMI of 50 or higher).

Overall, “composite morbidity occurred in 49 (1.3%) women and was not significantly different across BMI categories (P = .07),” noted the authors.

More specifically, there were 19 (1.5%) composite morbidity events in the nonobese cohort and 30 (1.3%) in the obese cohort. “Even among women who had undergone prior abdominal surgery, there was no association of BMI with the rate of procedural complication,” Dr. Byrne and associates added.

The subsequent pregnancy rate was 1.63 per 1,000 procedures performed, which is “significantly lower than previously reported estimates,” they noted. In total, there were six subsequent pregnancies in the cohort: three full term, two ectopic, and one of unknown location.

“Although there was variability in operative time in all BMI categories, this is likely not clinically relevant as the range in operative time overlapped across groups,” reported the authors. “Other surgical metrics, such as estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization after tubal ligation, were found to be no different between BMI categories.”

Their findings “can be generalized to other tubal ligation forms, such as modified Pomeroy and even possibly salpingectomy, if the minilaparotomy incision is the same,” Dr. Byrne and colleagues suggested.

“This innovative study adds an important practical perspective to the literature on postpartum permanent contraception – a finding that should be reassuring for obstetrician/gynecologists,” commented Eve Espey, MD MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Women with high BMI are significantly less likely to receive desired postvaginal delivery tubal ligation, compared to lower-BMI women, as documented in several prior studies,” said Dr. Espey, who is professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“Although those studies did not explore the reasons for nonfulfillment, intuitively concerns about complications or inability to complete the procedure are the most likely explanations,” she added.

“Although this study is limited by its retrospective nature, the smaller number of women in the highest BMI category, and lack of information on patients with unfulfilled requests for tubal ligation, it is overall well designed and should serve to encourage physicians to proceed with postvaginal delivery tubal ligation in patients across all BMI categories,” Dr. Espey concluded.

The study received no external funding; Dr. Byrne and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Espey is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, and said she has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Byrne JJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:342-8.
 

Women with a high body mass index who request tubal ligation immediately post partum face no increased risk of complications, compared with normal-weight woman, according to a large, single-institution, retrospective study.

“Our study underscores the overall safety of postpartum tubal ligation among overweight and obese women,” John J. Byrne, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas, Dallas, reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Even among women in the highest BMI category, this procedure is safe and effective,” they noted, despite previous studies identifying body mass index (BMI) higher than 40 kg/m² “as a significant barrier to this procedure.”

“For the woman who is appropriately counseled and desires permanent contraception, BMI should not impede her access to the procedure,” Dr. Byrne and associates said.

The study included 3,670 women undergoing postpartum tubal ligation after a vaginal delivery between August 2015 and March 2019 at Parkland Hospital, which is operated by the Dallas County Hospital District.

The method used was the Parkland-type tubal ligation – a bilateral midsegment partial salpingectomy performed through a 2-3 cm infraumbilical incision. Women were excluded if they were planning additional surgery, such as ovarian cyst removal or hernia repair at the same time.

Comparing a composite outcome of surgical complications and subsequent pregnancies over a 5-year follow-up, the study found no differences across all maternal BMI categories, which were stratified as: underweight or normal weight (BMI, 24.9 or lower), overweight (25-29.9), class I obesity (30-34.9), class II obesity (35-39.9), and class III obesity (40 or higher).

A full breakdown of the composite morbidity included “blood transfusion, aborted procedure, intraoperative complications (bleeding requiring additional surgery, extension of incision), anesthetic complication (high spinal, bronchospasm, postdural puncture headaches requiring blood patch, and allergic reaction to anesthetic), postoperative complication (deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, ileus, small bowel obstruction, acute intestinal herniation, peritonitis), return to operating room, incomplete transection of fallopian tube, and subsequent pregnancy,” they reported.

Among the study subjects, the mean BMI was 32.2, with 263 being underweight or normal weight at the time of admission, 1,044 being overweight, 1,371 having class I obesity, 689 having class II obesity, 303 having class III obesity, and 11 patients classified as supermorbidly obese (a BMI of 50 or higher).

Overall, “composite morbidity occurred in 49 (1.3%) women and was not significantly different across BMI categories (P = .07),” noted the authors.

More specifically, there were 19 (1.5%) composite morbidity events in the nonobese cohort and 30 (1.3%) in the obese cohort. “Even among women who had undergone prior abdominal surgery, there was no association of BMI with the rate of procedural complication,” Dr. Byrne and associates added.

The subsequent pregnancy rate was 1.63 per 1,000 procedures performed, which is “significantly lower than previously reported estimates,” they noted. In total, there were six subsequent pregnancies in the cohort: three full term, two ectopic, and one of unknown location.

“Although there was variability in operative time in all BMI categories, this is likely not clinically relevant as the range in operative time overlapped across groups,” reported the authors. “Other surgical metrics, such as estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization after tubal ligation, were found to be no different between BMI categories.”

Their findings “can be generalized to other tubal ligation forms, such as modified Pomeroy and even possibly salpingectomy, if the minilaparotomy incision is the same,” Dr. Byrne and colleagues suggested.

“This innovative study adds an important practical perspective to the literature on postpartum permanent contraception – a finding that should be reassuring for obstetrician/gynecologists,” commented Eve Espey, MD MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Women with high BMI are significantly less likely to receive desired postvaginal delivery tubal ligation, compared to lower-BMI women, as documented in several prior studies,” said Dr. Espey, who is professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“Although those studies did not explore the reasons for nonfulfillment, intuitively concerns about complications or inability to complete the procedure are the most likely explanations,” she added.

“Although this study is limited by its retrospective nature, the smaller number of women in the highest BMI category, and lack of information on patients with unfulfilled requests for tubal ligation, it is overall well designed and should serve to encourage physicians to proceed with postvaginal delivery tubal ligation in patients across all BMI categories,” Dr. Espey concluded.

The study received no external funding; Dr. Byrne and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Espey is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, and said she has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Byrne JJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:342-8.
 

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.

The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.    

Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.

The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”

“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.

The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.

Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.

“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.

One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”

Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.

“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.

As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”

In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”

She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.

Unnecessary screening

The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.

“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”

She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.

For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).

Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).

Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.

The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”

Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.

“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.

The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.    

Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.

The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”

“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.

The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.

Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.

“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.

One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”

Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.

“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.

As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”

In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”

She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.

Unnecessary screening

The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.

“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”

She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.

For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).

Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).

Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.

The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”

Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.

“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.

The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.    

Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.

The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”

“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.

The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.

Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.

“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.

One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”

Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.

“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.

As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”

In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”

She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.

Unnecessary screening

The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.

“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”

She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.

For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).

Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).

Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.

The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”

Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.

“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.