Ob.Gyn. News

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

There was a trend toward a greater risk of breast cancer with higher degrees of breast density asymmetry among women undergoing image-guided breast biopsies in a study presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

The 854 women in the study had been referred for biopsy after an abnormal mammogram.

Researchers used the mammograms to assess global bilateral asymmetry, which was the overall absolute difference in percent fibroglandular tissue volume (%FGV) between the ipsilateral (biopsied) breast and the contralateral (unaffected) breast.

The researchers also assessed local bilateral asymmetry, which was the perilesional %FGV difference in an area twice the size of, but excluding, the biopsy target, and the corresponding area in the unaffected breast.

The women were then divided into quartiles based on breast density asymmetry.

Most of the women had benign breast disease, including proliferative (43%) and nonproliferative (33%) disease, but 23% had carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.

The trend for higher risk of in situ or invasive cancer with increasing breast density asymmetry was observed only in the local analysis. The odds ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.69) for women in the highest quartile of breast density asymmetry (absolute difference, > 8.23) versus those in the lowest quartile (absolute difference, ≤ –5.55; P = .067).

When compared with women who had proliferative benign disease, women with carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer “were more likely to be in the higher than lower quartiles,” said lead investigator Maeve Mullooly, PhD, a research fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin.

There was no association between breast density asymmetry and traditional breast cancer risk factors such as age, body mass index, race, and hormone therapy. However, among women diagnosed with benign nonproliferative disease, women with a breast cancer family history were more likely to have higher overall breast density asymmetry.
 

Study rationale and details

Higher breast density is a known risk factor for breast cancer. Breast asymmetry also has been reported as a possible risk factor (Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8[2]:R14), and incorporation of breast density asymmetry into traditional risk factors in one study improved risk prediction (Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Mar 14;19[1]:29).

Building on that work, the goal of Dr. Mullooly’s study was to “learn how to better use breast density to inform breast cancer risk prediction,” she said.

To that end, her team turned to 854 women enrolled from 2007-2010 in the National Cancer Institute’s Breast Radiology Evaluation and Study of Tissues Project, a cross-sectional molecular epidemiologic study designed to understand how breast density measures are related to breast cancer etiology.

Most of the women were non-Hispanic white. The mean age was 51 years (range, 40-65), and the median body mass index was ²⁵ kg/m².

About three-quarters of the women (76%) had a breast density asymmetry of at least 2% on the global analysis, with 43% having higher %FGV in the biopsied breast and 33% having higher %FGV in the unaffected breast. In all, 89% of women had local breast density asymmetry, with higher density in the biopsied breast in 61% of women and higher density in the contralateral breast in 28%.
 

Next steps

This research is ongoing, and additional follow-up is planned, according to Dr. Mullooly. She said the researchers hope to apply more recent analytical techniques to the mammograms and to study the histologic differences in their breast biopsy specimens, among other steps, to see if stronger relationships with greater clinical utility emerge.

It was a “very well done study” with “very provocative data,” said presentation moderator Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

She was interested in the planned next steps, particularly the histologic analysis of dense versus less dense breast tissue. There could be “differences in stroma or hormonal levels even at the microenvironmental level” that “represent a potential field defect, which later puts someone at risk,” she said, adding that it’s “great” that the work is continuing.

The National Cancer Institute funded the research. Dr. Mullooly reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wargo disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Imedex, Dava Oncology, Omniprex, Illumina, Gilead, PeerView, Physician Education Resource, MedImmune, Merck, Biothera Pharmaceuticals, and Microbiome DX.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mullooly M et al. AACR 2020, Abstract NG15.

There was a trend toward a greater risk of breast cancer with higher degrees of breast density asymmetry among women undergoing image-guided breast biopsies in a study presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

The 854 women in the study had been referred for biopsy after an abnormal mammogram.

Researchers used the mammograms to assess global bilateral asymmetry, which was the overall absolute difference in percent fibroglandular tissue volume (%FGV) between the ipsilateral (biopsied) breast and the contralateral (unaffected) breast.

The researchers also assessed local bilateral asymmetry, which was the perilesional %FGV difference in an area twice the size of, but excluding, the biopsy target, and the corresponding area in the unaffected breast.

The women were then divided into quartiles based on breast density asymmetry.

Most of the women had benign breast disease, including proliferative (43%) and nonproliferative (33%) disease, but 23% had carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.

The trend for higher risk of in situ or invasive cancer with increasing breast density asymmetry was observed only in the local analysis. The odds ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.69) for women in the highest quartile of breast density asymmetry (absolute difference, > 8.23) versus those in the lowest quartile (absolute difference, ≤ –5.55; P = .067).

When compared with women who had proliferative benign disease, women with carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer “were more likely to be in the higher than lower quartiles,” said lead investigator Maeve Mullooly, PhD, a research fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin.

There was no association between breast density asymmetry and traditional breast cancer risk factors such as age, body mass index, race, and hormone therapy. However, among women diagnosed with benign nonproliferative disease, women with a breast cancer family history were more likely to have higher overall breast density asymmetry.
 

Study rationale and details

Higher breast density is a known risk factor for breast cancer. Breast asymmetry also has been reported as a possible risk factor (Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8[2]:R14), and incorporation of breast density asymmetry into traditional risk factors in one study improved risk prediction (Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Mar 14;19[1]:29).

Building on that work, the goal of Dr. Mullooly’s study was to “learn how to better use breast density to inform breast cancer risk prediction,” she said.

To that end, her team turned to 854 women enrolled from 2007-2010 in the National Cancer Institute’s Breast Radiology Evaluation and Study of Tissues Project, a cross-sectional molecular epidemiologic study designed to understand how breast density measures are related to breast cancer etiology.

Most of the women were non-Hispanic white. The mean age was 51 years (range, 40-65), and the median body mass index was ²⁵ kg/m².

About three-quarters of the women (76%) had a breast density asymmetry of at least 2% on the global analysis, with 43% having higher %FGV in the biopsied breast and 33% having higher %FGV in the unaffected breast. In all, 89% of women had local breast density asymmetry, with higher density in the biopsied breast in 61% of women and higher density in the contralateral breast in 28%.
 

Next steps

This research is ongoing, and additional follow-up is planned, according to Dr. Mullooly. She said the researchers hope to apply more recent analytical techniques to the mammograms and to study the histologic differences in their breast biopsy specimens, among other steps, to see if stronger relationships with greater clinical utility emerge.

It was a “very well done study” with “very provocative data,” said presentation moderator Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

She was interested in the planned next steps, particularly the histologic analysis of dense versus less dense breast tissue. There could be “differences in stroma or hormonal levels even at the microenvironmental level” that “represent a potential field defect, which later puts someone at risk,” she said, adding that it’s “great” that the work is continuing.

The National Cancer Institute funded the research. Dr. Mullooly reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wargo disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Imedex, Dava Oncology, Omniprex, Illumina, Gilead, PeerView, Physician Education Resource, MedImmune, Merck, Biothera Pharmaceuticals, and Microbiome DX.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mullooly M et al. AACR 2020, Abstract NG15.

There was a trend toward a greater risk of breast cancer with higher degrees of breast density asymmetry among women undergoing image-guided breast biopsies in a study presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

The 854 women in the study had been referred for biopsy after an abnormal mammogram.

Researchers used the mammograms to assess global bilateral asymmetry, which was the overall absolute difference in percent fibroglandular tissue volume (%FGV) between the ipsilateral (biopsied) breast and the contralateral (unaffected) breast.

The researchers also assessed local bilateral asymmetry, which was the perilesional %FGV difference in an area twice the size of, but excluding, the biopsy target, and the corresponding area in the unaffected breast.

The women were then divided into quartiles based on breast density asymmetry.

Most of the women had benign breast disease, including proliferative (43%) and nonproliferative (33%) disease, but 23% had carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.

The trend for higher risk of in situ or invasive cancer with increasing breast density asymmetry was observed only in the local analysis. The odds ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.69) for women in the highest quartile of breast density asymmetry (absolute difference, > 8.23) versus those in the lowest quartile (absolute difference, ≤ –5.55; P = .067).

When compared with women who had proliferative benign disease, women with carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer “were more likely to be in the higher than lower quartiles,” said lead investigator Maeve Mullooly, PhD, a research fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin.

There was no association between breast density asymmetry and traditional breast cancer risk factors such as age, body mass index, race, and hormone therapy. However, among women diagnosed with benign nonproliferative disease, women with a breast cancer family history were more likely to have higher overall breast density asymmetry.
 

Study rationale and details

Higher breast density is a known risk factor for breast cancer. Breast asymmetry also has been reported as a possible risk factor (Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8[2]:R14), and incorporation of breast density asymmetry into traditional risk factors in one study improved risk prediction (Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Mar 14;19[1]:29).

Building on that work, the goal of Dr. Mullooly’s study was to “learn how to better use breast density to inform breast cancer risk prediction,” she said.

To that end, her team turned to 854 women enrolled from 2007-2010 in the National Cancer Institute’s Breast Radiology Evaluation and Study of Tissues Project, a cross-sectional molecular epidemiologic study designed to understand how breast density measures are related to breast cancer etiology.

Most of the women were non-Hispanic white. The mean age was 51 years (range, 40-65), and the median body mass index was ²⁵ kg/m².

About three-quarters of the women (76%) had a breast density asymmetry of at least 2% on the global analysis, with 43% having higher %FGV in the biopsied breast and 33% having higher %FGV in the unaffected breast. In all, 89% of women had local breast density asymmetry, with higher density in the biopsied breast in 61% of women and higher density in the contralateral breast in 28%.
 

Next steps

This research is ongoing, and additional follow-up is planned, according to Dr. Mullooly. She said the researchers hope to apply more recent analytical techniques to the mammograms and to study the histologic differences in their breast biopsy specimens, among other steps, to see if stronger relationships with greater clinical utility emerge.

It was a “very well done study” with “very provocative data,” said presentation moderator Jennifer Wargo, MD, professor of genomic medicine and surgical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

She was interested in the planned next steps, particularly the histologic analysis of dense versus less dense breast tissue. There could be “differences in stroma or hormonal levels even at the microenvironmental level” that “represent a potential field defect, which later puts someone at risk,” she said, adding that it’s “great” that the work is continuing.

The National Cancer Institute funded the research. Dr. Mullooly reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wargo disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Imedex, Dava Oncology, Omniprex, Illumina, Gilead, PeerView, Physician Education Resource, MedImmune, Merck, Biothera Pharmaceuticals, and Microbiome DX.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mullooly M et al. AACR 2020, Abstract NG15.

The longer researchers have looked for evidence of neural tube defects linked with dolutegravir treatment of HIV at the time of conception the fewer incident cases they’ve found.

The newest data, based on 3,591 deliveries among women in Botswana infected by HIV and treated with dolutegravir at the time of conception during a little more than 5.5 years through April 2020, showed that dolutegravir use at conception linked with 7 cases of neonatal neural tube defects (NTDs), a 0.19% rate that exceeded comparator rates by about 1 in every 1,000 deliveries, far below the 0.94% rate initially found and that raised a red flag 2 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:979-81). “The prevalence of NTDs among infants born to women on dolutegravir at conception may be stabilizing at approximately 2 per 1,000,” said Rebecca Zash, MD, during the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference.

“This small absolute risk for neural tube defects is far outweighed by the potential benefits from dolutegravir” for better tolerability than alternative drugs and fewer drug-drug interactions. “This should allow for broader use of dolutegravir in women,” added Dr. Zash, an HIV specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and codirector of the Placental Scientific Working Group of the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, both in Boston.

“What this has taught us is that women are not a niche population” of people infected with HIV, but rather constitute about half of HIV patients worldwide. “Maintaining gender equity in HIV treatment requires safety data for treatments during pregnancy,” she said during a press briefing.

The new findings mean that it’s “time to lay to rest” concerns about neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants born to women treated with dolutegravir, “given the incredible benefits of dolutegravir,” commented Monica Gandhi, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious disease, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Another benefit from removing any caveats about use of dolutegravir in women who could become pregnant is that it would simplify treatment recommendations and make dolutegravir the unqualified first-line agent for treating HIV infection, Dr. Gandhi said during the briefing. “It’s super reassuring to have these data, as the incidence of NTDs goes down and down,” she added.

Following the alarm raised by initial findings from the Tsepamo study in 2018, Dr. Zash and associates first updated their data through March 2019, when they reported a revised cumulative NTD incidence rate of 0.3% (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:827-40). The Tsepamo study began by following the pregnancy outcomes of women at eight Botswana sites during August 2014–July 2018, representing 45% of the country’s deliveries. This expanded to 18 sites and 72% of deliveries during July-September 2018, and then starting in September 2019 the scope slightly reduced to 16 Botswana sites with 70% of the nation’s deliveries.

Folate supplementation to women who might conceive is vital, but remains spotty in Botswana. “Folate supplementation is a no-brainer, but has had really slow adoption in many countries,” Dr. Zash said. “Folate supplementation, especially in food so that everyone gets it, will reduce NTDs by half.” The two most recent cases of infants born with a NTD to mothers who had been on dolutegravir at conception occurred in mothers who had received no folate supplementation, Dr. Zash reported.

The most recent HIV treatment guidelines for adults from the Department of Health & Human Services, which date from late 2019, designated dolutegravir plus lamivudine as a first-line regimen for most, but flagged it as an “alternative” antiretroviral drug when treating women who have childbearing potential and are either trying to conceive or are sexually active but not using contraception.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zash has been a researcher in studies funded by CytoDyn, Fulcrum, and Gilead. Dr. Gandhi had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The longer researchers have looked for evidence of neural tube defects linked with dolutegravir treatment of HIV at the time of conception the fewer incident cases they’ve found.

The newest data, based on 3,591 deliveries among women in Botswana infected by HIV and treated with dolutegravir at the time of conception during a little more than 5.5 years through April 2020, showed that dolutegravir use at conception linked with 7 cases of neonatal neural tube defects (NTDs), a 0.19% rate that exceeded comparator rates by about 1 in every 1,000 deliveries, far below the 0.94% rate initially found and that raised a red flag 2 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:979-81). “The prevalence of NTDs among infants born to women on dolutegravir at conception may be stabilizing at approximately 2 per 1,000,” said Rebecca Zash, MD, during the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference.

“This small absolute risk for neural tube defects is far outweighed by the potential benefits from dolutegravir” for better tolerability than alternative drugs and fewer drug-drug interactions. “This should allow for broader use of dolutegravir in women,” added Dr. Zash, an HIV specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and codirector of the Placental Scientific Working Group of the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, both in Boston.

“What this has taught us is that women are not a niche population” of people infected with HIV, but rather constitute about half of HIV patients worldwide. “Maintaining gender equity in HIV treatment requires safety data for treatments during pregnancy,” she said during a press briefing.

The new findings mean that it’s “time to lay to rest” concerns about neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants born to women treated with dolutegravir, “given the incredible benefits of dolutegravir,” commented Monica Gandhi, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious disease, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Another benefit from removing any caveats about use of dolutegravir in women who could become pregnant is that it would simplify treatment recommendations and make dolutegravir the unqualified first-line agent for treating HIV infection, Dr. Gandhi said during the briefing. “It’s super reassuring to have these data, as the incidence of NTDs goes down and down,” she added.

Following the alarm raised by initial findings from the Tsepamo study in 2018, Dr. Zash and associates first updated their data through March 2019, when they reported a revised cumulative NTD incidence rate of 0.3% (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:827-40). The Tsepamo study began by following the pregnancy outcomes of women at eight Botswana sites during August 2014–July 2018, representing 45% of the country’s deliveries. This expanded to 18 sites and 72% of deliveries during July-September 2018, and then starting in September 2019 the scope slightly reduced to 16 Botswana sites with 70% of the nation’s deliveries.

Folate supplementation to women who might conceive is vital, but remains spotty in Botswana. “Folate supplementation is a no-brainer, but has had really slow adoption in many countries,” Dr. Zash said. “Folate supplementation, especially in food so that everyone gets it, will reduce NTDs by half.” The two most recent cases of infants born with a NTD to mothers who had been on dolutegravir at conception occurred in mothers who had received no folate supplementation, Dr. Zash reported.

The most recent HIV treatment guidelines for adults from the Department of Health & Human Services, which date from late 2019, designated dolutegravir plus lamivudine as a first-line regimen for most, but flagged it as an “alternative” antiretroviral drug when treating women who have childbearing potential and are either trying to conceive or are sexually active but not using contraception.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zash has been a researcher in studies funded by CytoDyn, Fulcrum, and Gilead. Dr. Gandhi had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The longer researchers have looked for evidence of neural tube defects linked with dolutegravir treatment of HIV at the time of conception the fewer incident cases they’ve found.

The newest data, based on 3,591 deliveries among women in Botswana infected by HIV and treated with dolutegravir at the time of conception during a little more than 5.5 years through April 2020, showed that dolutegravir use at conception linked with 7 cases of neonatal neural tube defects (NTDs), a 0.19% rate that exceeded comparator rates by about 1 in every 1,000 deliveries, far below the 0.94% rate initially found and that raised a red flag 2 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:979-81). “The prevalence of NTDs among infants born to women on dolutegravir at conception may be stabilizing at approximately 2 per 1,000,” said Rebecca Zash, MD, during the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference.

“This small absolute risk for neural tube defects is far outweighed by the potential benefits from dolutegravir” for better tolerability than alternative drugs and fewer drug-drug interactions. “This should allow for broader use of dolutegravir in women,” added Dr. Zash, an HIV specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and codirector of the Placental Scientific Working Group of the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, both in Boston.

“What this has taught us is that women are not a niche population” of people infected with HIV, but rather constitute about half of HIV patients worldwide. “Maintaining gender equity in HIV treatment requires safety data for treatments during pregnancy,” she said during a press briefing.

The new findings mean that it’s “time to lay to rest” concerns about neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants born to women treated with dolutegravir, “given the incredible benefits of dolutegravir,” commented Monica Gandhi, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious disease, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Another benefit from removing any caveats about use of dolutegravir in women who could become pregnant is that it would simplify treatment recommendations and make dolutegravir the unqualified first-line agent for treating HIV infection, Dr. Gandhi said during the briefing. “It’s super reassuring to have these data, as the incidence of NTDs goes down and down,” she added.

Following the alarm raised by initial findings from the Tsepamo study in 2018, Dr. Zash and associates first updated their data through March 2019, when they reported a revised cumulative NTD incidence rate of 0.3% (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:827-40). The Tsepamo study began by following the pregnancy outcomes of women at eight Botswana sites during August 2014–July 2018, representing 45% of the country’s deliveries. This expanded to 18 sites and 72% of deliveries during July-September 2018, and then starting in September 2019 the scope slightly reduced to 16 Botswana sites with 70% of the nation’s deliveries.

Folate supplementation to women who might conceive is vital, but remains spotty in Botswana. “Folate supplementation is a no-brainer, but has had really slow adoption in many countries,” Dr. Zash said. “Folate supplementation, especially in food so that everyone gets it, will reduce NTDs by half.” The two most recent cases of infants born with a NTD to mothers who had been on dolutegravir at conception occurred in mothers who had received no folate supplementation, Dr. Zash reported.

The most recent HIV treatment guidelines for adults from the Department of Health & Human Services, which date from late 2019, designated dolutegravir plus lamivudine as a first-line regimen for most, but flagged it as an “alternative” antiretroviral drug when treating women who have childbearing potential and are either trying to conceive or are sexually active but not using contraception.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zash has been a researcher in studies funded by CytoDyn, Fulcrum, and Gilead. Dr. Gandhi had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults younger than 55 years has been increasing in recent years ― a “dramatic increase” was noted in the United States in 2017, and an increase in incidence has subsequently been seen in many other countries across Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

A new study has identified geographic hot spots across the United States, characterized by distinct patterns of early-onset CRC with worse survival among men. The hot spots primarily include counties in the lower Mississippi Delta, west-central Appalachia, and eastern Virginia/North Carolina.

In these hot spots, young adult non-Hispanic black men were specifically at risk and were more likely to die of the disease as compared to persons of other racial groups.

The study was published online on May 15 in the American Journal of Cancer Research.

These data can help to identify some of the risk factors associated with early-onset CRC/mortality, commented lead author Charles Rogers, PhD, MPH, a researcher at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor of public health at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We noted potential explanations for the hot spots,” he told Medscape Medical News. “These include an enduring history of unique challenges, such as inadequate access to care, poor health literacy, and low educational attainment.”

Within hot-spot counties there were also higher rates of poverty, a lack of health insurance, and fewer primary care physicians.

“The disproportionate burden of early-onset colorectal cancer among non-Hispanic black men may result from distinctive stressors coupled with cultural and social expectations that impact screening and care behaviors,” said Rogers. “And while it’s estimated that approximately 14% of all US adults are current smokers, we observed that 24% of the adult population residing in hot-spot counties reported currently smoking and having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime.”
 

Lifestyle and screening

Elements relating to the increase in early-onset CRC include environmental and geographical factors, as well as lifestyle factors, such as diet, obesity, and sedentary behaviors, Rogers commented.

“I think lifestyle factors are huge,” he said. “Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and charred meat, for example, are worth considering and deserve more attention.”

He emphasized the importance of screening. Most health organizations in the United States recommend that screening start at age 50 years, but the American Cancer Society lowered this to 45 years, and the issue has been hotly debated. Rogers said that adults younger than 50 should be having conversations with their clinicians about screening for CRC. He noted that this is particularly important if they have any symptoms of CRC, have a family history of the disease, or reside in one of the hot spots that were identified in their study.

An expert who was approached for outside comment agreed. Chyke Doubeni, MBBS, MPH, director of the Center for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that anyone with health concerns should discuss preventive measures with their primary care physician.

“Screening for people younger than the age of 50 is currently controversial, as it is not recommended by some guidelines,” he said. “Recommendations for screening are different for people with a family history or certain genetic conditions.”

Such people include those younger than 50 years who have a family history of CRC or advanced adenomas. These patients should share that history with their primary care physician in order to determine when to begin screening and how often to be screened.

“People under the age of 50 who have symptoms such as unexplained rectal bleeding or iron deficiency anemia that may suggest the presence of colorectal cancer should be promptly evaluated for that possibility,” Doubeni added.
 

Hot spots versus other counties

The goal of the study was to identify mortality hot spots specific to men with early-onset CRC and to evaluate disparities while controlling for sex-specific differences. Rogers and colleagues identified counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999–2017) and linked them to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) for men aged 15 to 49 years.

The team identified 232 US counties (7% of the total) as hot spots. The majority (214 of 232, 92%) were located in the South, and the remainder (18 of 232, 8%) were in the Midwest P < .01).

As compared to men living in other counties, those residing in hot-spot counties were more likely to be non-Hispanic blacks (30.82% vs 13.06%), less likely to be Hispanic (1.68% vs 16.65%; P < .01), and more likely to be diagnosed with metastatic disease (stage IV CRC) (2.58% vs 1.94%; P < .01).

Among men who lived in hot spots, CRC survival was poorer than was seen elsewhere (113.76 vs 129.04 months, respectively; P < .001). Among those with early-onset CRC, the risk for CRC-specific death was 24% higher (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24) than for men living outside of the hot-spot counties. However, that figure dropped to 12% after adjustment for county-level smoking (HR, 1.12).

With respect to racial/ethnic differences, non-Hispanic black (HR, 1.31) and Hispanic (HR, 1.12) patients had a 31% and 12% increased risk for CRC-specific death as compared to non-Hispanic white men (HR, 1.01) after adjusting for smoking status.

The authors note that among all determinants, “clinical stage explained the largest proportion of the variance” in early-onset CRC survival for men living in hot spots and other locations combined.

In the hot-spot counties, severe tumor grade was associated with greater CRC-specific mortality risk. Among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 1.87) and undifferentiated tumors (HR, 2.60), the mortality risk was nearly 2 times and 2.6 times greater, respectively, than those with well-differentiated tumors.

Compared to other counties, hot-spot counties were characterized by demographics that have been linked to poorer health outcomes, such as higher poverty rates (26.57% vs 16.77%), greater prevalence of adult obesity (34.94% vs 25.89%), higher adult smoking rates (23.97% vs 15.44%), higher uninsured rates (20.06% vs 17.91%), and fewer primary care physicians (58.28 vs 75.45 per 100,000 population).
 

Geographic distribution of CRC

Commenting to Medscape Medical News, Doubeni pointed out that the identified hot spots are similar to previously reported overall CRC hot spots.

“It shows the same patterns of geographic distribution of colorectal cancer in the United States,” he said. “These patterns tend to be associated with areas with high levels of poverty, as is the case with other chronic diseases, and may be related to clustering of risk factors and limited access to care in those areas.”

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, and the Health Studies Fund of the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah. The authors and Doubeni have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults younger than 55 years has been increasing in recent years ― a “dramatic increase” was noted in the United States in 2017, and an increase in incidence has subsequently been seen in many other countries across Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

A new study has identified geographic hot spots across the United States, characterized by distinct patterns of early-onset CRC with worse survival among men. The hot spots primarily include counties in the lower Mississippi Delta, west-central Appalachia, and eastern Virginia/North Carolina.

In these hot spots, young adult non-Hispanic black men were specifically at risk and were more likely to die of the disease as compared to persons of other racial groups.

The study was published online on May 15 in the American Journal of Cancer Research.

These data can help to identify some of the risk factors associated with early-onset CRC/mortality, commented lead author Charles Rogers, PhD, MPH, a researcher at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor of public health at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We noted potential explanations for the hot spots,” he told Medscape Medical News. “These include an enduring history of unique challenges, such as inadequate access to care, poor health literacy, and low educational attainment.”

Within hot-spot counties there were also higher rates of poverty, a lack of health insurance, and fewer primary care physicians.

“The disproportionate burden of early-onset colorectal cancer among non-Hispanic black men may result from distinctive stressors coupled with cultural and social expectations that impact screening and care behaviors,” said Rogers. “And while it’s estimated that approximately 14% of all US adults are current smokers, we observed that 24% of the adult population residing in hot-spot counties reported currently smoking and having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime.”
 

Lifestyle and screening

Elements relating to the increase in early-onset CRC include environmental and geographical factors, as well as lifestyle factors, such as diet, obesity, and sedentary behaviors, Rogers commented.

“I think lifestyle factors are huge,” he said. “Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and charred meat, for example, are worth considering and deserve more attention.”

He emphasized the importance of screening. Most health organizations in the United States recommend that screening start at age 50 years, but the American Cancer Society lowered this to 45 years, and the issue has been hotly debated. Rogers said that adults younger than 50 should be having conversations with their clinicians about screening for CRC. He noted that this is particularly important if they have any symptoms of CRC, have a family history of the disease, or reside in one of the hot spots that were identified in their study.

An expert who was approached for outside comment agreed. Chyke Doubeni, MBBS, MPH, director of the Center for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that anyone with health concerns should discuss preventive measures with their primary care physician.

“Screening for people younger than the age of 50 is currently controversial, as it is not recommended by some guidelines,” he said. “Recommendations for screening are different for people with a family history or certain genetic conditions.”

Such people include those younger than 50 years who have a family history of CRC or advanced adenomas. These patients should share that history with their primary care physician in order to determine when to begin screening and how often to be screened.

“People under the age of 50 who have symptoms such as unexplained rectal bleeding or iron deficiency anemia that may suggest the presence of colorectal cancer should be promptly evaluated for that possibility,” Doubeni added.
 

Hot spots versus other counties

The goal of the study was to identify mortality hot spots specific to men with early-onset CRC and to evaluate disparities while controlling for sex-specific differences. Rogers and colleagues identified counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999–2017) and linked them to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) for men aged 15 to 49 years.

The team identified 232 US counties (7% of the total) as hot spots. The majority (214 of 232, 92%) were located in the South, and the remainder (18 of 232, 8%) were in the Midwest P < .01).

As compared to men living in other counties, those residing in hot-spot counties were more likely to be non-Hispanic blacks (30.82% vs 13.06%), less likely to be Hispanic (1.68% vs 16.65%; P < .01), and more likely to be diagnosed with metastatic disease (stage IV CRC) (2.58% vs 1.94%; P < .01).

Among men who lived in hot spots, CRC survival was poorer than was seen elsewhere (113.76 vs 129.04 months, respectively; P < .001). Among those with early-onset CRC, the risk for CRC-specific death was 24% higher (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24) than for men living outside of the hot-spot counties. However, that figure dropped to 12% after adjustment for county-level smoking (HR, 1.12).

With respect to racial/ethnic differences, non-Hispanic black (HR, 1.31) and Hispanic (HR, 1.12) patients had a 31% and 12% increased risk for CRC-specific death as compared to non-Hispanic white men (HR, 1.01) after adjusting for smoking status.

The authors note that among all determinants, “clinical stage explained the largest proportion of the variance” in early-onset CRC survival for men living in hot spots and other locations combined.

In the hot-spot counties, severe tumor grade was associated with greater CRC-specific mortality risk. Among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 1.87) and undifferentiated tumors (HR, 2.60), the mortality risk was nearly 2 times and 2.6 times greater, respectively, than those with well-differentiated tumors.

Compared to other counties, hot-spot counties were characterized by demographics that have been linked to poorer health outcomes, such as higher poverty rates (26.57% vs 16.77%), greater prevalence of adult obesity (34.94% vs 25.89%), higher adult smoking rates (23.97% vs 15.44%), higher uninsured rates (20.06% vs 17.91%), and fewer primary care physicians (58.28 vs 75.45 per 100,000 population).
 

Geographic distribution of CRC

Commenting to Medscape Medical News, Doubeni pointed out that the identified hot spots are similar to previously reported overall CRC hot spots.

“It shows the same patterns of geographic distribution of colorectal cancer in the United States,” he said. “These patterns tend to be associated with areas with high levels of poverty, as is the case with other chronic diseases, and may be related to clustering of risk factors and limited access to care in those areas.”

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, and the Health Studies Fund of the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah. The authors and Doubeni have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults younger than 55 years has been increasing in recent years ― a “dramatic increase” was noted in the United States in 2017, and an increase in incidence has subsequently been seen in many other countries across Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

A new study has identified geographic hot spots across the United States, characterized by distinct patterns of early-onset CRC with worse survival among men. The hot spots primarily include counties in the lower Mississippi Delta, west-central Appalachia, and eastern Virginia/North Carolina.

In these hot spots, young adult non-Hispanic black men were specifically at risk and were more likely to die of the disease as compared to persons of other racial groups.

The study was published online on May 15 in the American Journal of Cancer Research.

These data can help to identify some of the risk factors associated with early-onset CRC/mortality, commented lead author Charles Rogers, PhD, MPH, a researcher at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor of public health at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We noted potential explanations for the hot spots,” he told Medscape Medical News. “These include an enduring history of unique challenges, such as inadequate access to care, poor health literacy, and low educational attainment.”

Within hot-spot counties there were also higher rates of poverty, a lack of health insurance, and fewer primary care physicians.

“The disproportionate burden of early-onset colorectal cancer among non-Hispanic black men may result from distinctive stressors coupled with cultural and social expectations that impact screening and care behaviors,” said Rogers. “And while it’s estimated that approximately 14% of all US adults are current smokers, we observed that 24% of the adult population residing in hot-spot counties reported currently smoking and having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime.”
 

Lifestyle and screening

Elements relating to the increase in early-onset CRC include environmental and geographical factors, as well as lifestyle factors, such as diet, obesity, and sedentary behaviors, Rogers commented.

“I think lifestyle factors are huge,” he said. “Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and charred meat, for example, are worth considering and deserve more attention.”

He emphasized the importance of screening. Most health organizations in the United States recommend that screening start at age 50 years, but the American Cancer Society lowered this to 45 years, and the issue has been hotly debated. Rogers said that adults younger than 50 should be having conversations with their clinicians about screening for CRC. He noted that this is particularly important if they have any symptoms of CRC, have a family history of the disease, or reside in one of the hot spots that were identified in their study.

An expert who was approached for outside comment agreed. Chyke Doubeni, MBBS, MPH, director of the Center for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that anyone with health concerns should discuss preventive measures with their primary care physician.

“Screening for people younger than the age of 50 is currently controversial, as it is not recommended by some guidelines,” he said. “Recommendations for screening are different for people with a family history or certain genetic conditions.”

Such people include those younger than 50 years who have a family history of CRC or advanced adenomas. These patients should share that history with their primary care physician in order to determine when to begin screening and how often to be screened.

“People under the age of 50 who have symptoms such as unexplained rectal bleeding or iron deficiency anemia that may suggest the presence of colorectal cancer should be promptly evaluated for that possibility,” Doubeni added.
 

Hot spots versus other counties

The goal of the study was to identify mortality hot spots specific to men with early-onset CRC and to evaluate disparities while controlling for sex-specific differences. Rogers and colleagues identified counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999–2017) and linked them to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) for men aged 15 to 49 years.

The team identified 232 US counties (7% of the total) as hot spots. The majority (214 of 232, 92%) were located in the South, and the remainder (18 of 232, 8%) were in the Midwest P < .01).

As compared to men living in other counties, those residing in hot-spot counties were more likely to be non-Hispanic blacks (30.82% vs 13.06%), less likely to be Hispanic (1.68% vs 16.65%; P < .01), and more likely to be diagnosed with metastatic disease (stage IV CRC) (2.58% vs 1.94%; P < .01).

Among men who lived in hot spots, CRC survival was poorer than was seen elsewhere (113.76 vs 129.04 months, respectively; P < .001). Among those with early-onset CRC, the risk for CRC-specific death was 24% higher (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24) than for men living outside of the hot-spot counties. However, that figure dropped to 12% after adjustment for county-level smoking (HR, 1.12).

With respect to racial/ethnic differences, non-Hispanic black (HR, 1.31) and Hispanic (HR, 1.12) patients had a 31% and 12% increased risk for CRC-specific death as compared to non-Hispanic white men (HR, 1.01) after adjusting for smoking status.

The authors note that among all determinants, “clinical stage explained the largest proportion of the variance” in early-onset CRC survival for men living in hot spots and other locations combined.

In the hot-spot counties, severe tumor grade was associated with greater CRC-specific mortality risk. Among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 1.87) and undifferentiated tumors (HR, 2.60), the mortality risk was nearly 2 times and 2.6 times greater, respectively, than those with well-differentiated tumors.

Compared to other counties, hot-spot counties were characterized by demographics that have been linked to poorer health outcomes, such as higher poverty rates (26.57% vs 16.77%), greater prevalence of adult obesity (34.94% vs 25.89%), higher adult smoking rates (23.97% vs 15.44%), higher uninsured rates (20.06% vs 17.91%), and fewer primary care physicians (58.28 vs 75.45 per 100,000 population).
 

Geographic distribution of CRC

Commenting to Medscape Medical News, Doubeni pointed out that the identified hot spots are similar to previously reported overall CRC hot spots.

“It shows the same patterns of geographic distribution of colorectal cancer in the United States,” he said. “These patterns tend to be associated with areas with high levels of poverty, as is the case with other chronic diseases, and may be related to clustering of risk factors and limited access to care in those areas.”

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, and the Health Studies Fund of the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah. The authors and Doubeni have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.