All posts by CPTFadmin

Statement of Dr. Diana Zuckerman in Honor of Dr. Vivian Pinn

September 8, 2017

I am going to Charlottesville on September 13 to honor Dr. Vivian Pinn, our 2013 Foremother Awards honoree, as a major research facility at UVA’s School of Medicine is named in her honor.  Dr. Pinn received her medical degree from the University of Virginia in 1967, where she was the only woman and only African American in her graduating class. In 2005, she returned to UVA as the University’s first African-American woman commencement speaker, and UVA’s School of Medicine named one of its 4 student advisory colleges as the “Pinn College” in her honor. UVA’s School of Medicine honored her by establishing the “Vivian W. Pinn Distinguished Lecture Series in Health Disparities.”  And now she is the first African American to have a building named in her honor at UVA’s School of Medicine.

We honored Dr. Pinn with our Foremother Award in 2013.  As the first director of the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health, Dr. Pinn has had many accomplishments.  But one of her most important was her support for the Women’s Health Initiative, which was the first study to determine that women’s  hormones do not need to be “replaced” after menopause, because combined hormone therapy actually increased the risk of heart attack, stroke, and breast cancer in postmenopausal women.  This study resulted in a drop in breast cancer among women for the first time, and has saved thousands of lives.


L to R: Former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy, actor Pierce Brosnan, and
Dr. Vivian Pinn at a Congressional Briefing on Women’s Health Research in 1992.

Will Controversial Bill Cure or Kill Patients?

Celia Wexler, Who What Why: September 7, 2017

In 2016, 10-year-old Joshua Hardy lost his long battle with cancer, in part because of a viral infection that resulted from a bone marrow transplant. Hardy’s family tried to get access to a new experimental antiviral drug from Chimerix, the company developing it. The company refused, not wanting to divert time and resources from its efforts to gain FDA approval for the drug. It agreed to make the drug available only after a social media campaign.

Hardy responded well to the drug, but it was too late.

Hardy’s story is one of those featured in the lobbying campaign for a federal Right to Try (RTT) bill, which passed the Senate in August and may soon get a vote in the House.

But the Senate-passed bill would not require drug companies to provide dying patients access to their experimental drugs. Instead, it largely goes after the Food and Drug Administration, and would remove FDA oversight from the process, while insulating the pharmaceutical industry and doctors from virtually any liability if patients are harmed.

RTT pits some desperate patients, along with libertarians and conservative and anti-regulation Republicans, including President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, against public health advocates, medical ethicists, and some national patient-advocacy groups.

The bill’s supporters frame the legislation as striking a blow for the rights of patients to try any drug without government interference. They predict that more pharmaceutical companies would give patients access to their unproven drugs if they weren’t worried about the FDA looking over their shoulders.

The bill’s opponents contend that any possible expansion of access comes at the cost of eliminating crucial protections for the most vulnerable patients, potentially hastening their deaths and making their end more painful.

Opponents are circulating a letter to the House this week charging that RTT should actually be called the “False Hope” bill. Indeed, given the philosophical bent of its strongest supporters, and their connection to free-market crusaders Charles and David Koch, RTT may be more about advancing a conservative, anti-government ideology than helping the terminally ill. […]

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, points out that drug companies rely on a three-phase clinical trial process to gain FDA approval for their products. If RTT siphoned off patients with life-threatening illnesses from clinical trials, particularly for trials of medications serving limited populations with rare diseases, drug companies might find it even harder to enroll enough patients to complete them. And health insurers will not pay for drugs that lack FDA approval. […]

RTT’s true beneficiaries may be new drug startups that are neither “patient-oriented nor compassionate, trying to create buzz for their product,” Zuckerman said. A biotech startup, she speculated, might be struggling with the high costs of making its product, and be happy to find wealthy, desperate patients willing to pay the freight. This might be particularly attractive since RTT gives patients only limited rights to sue, even if they are seriously harmed by defective products.

Unscrupulous doctors also might benefit, she added, since the law does not place any restrictions on the fees they may charge patients to administer the drug and monitor their progress. […]

Read the original article here.

Why Are Celebrities Removing Their Breast Implants?

Amelia Murphy, Cancer Prevention & Treatment Fund

Every now and then, a new celebrity is in the news after announcing her decision to remove her breast implants. They speak out about the importance of loving yourself the way you are, they post some Instagram pictures of “the new me,” and the public eagerly reads the related articles in tabloid magazines.

But most of these women aren’t just talking about body image; they are getting their implants removed because of their health. Breast implants can make some women so sick that removal is their best hope for feeling like themselves again.  Several celebrities are trying to spread this information to the general public.

Crystal Hefner, Hugh Hefner’s wife, opened up about her breast implant horror story on Facebook. She announced her implants had been slowly poisoning her and causing unexplained back pain, cognitive problems, constant neck and shoulder pain, recurring infections, and many other symptoms. Once she removed her breast implants, she instantly felt an improvement and continues to feel better. [Read more about her story in this Forbes article]

Yolanda Foster, of Real Housewives fame, removed her breast implants when she found out her silicone implants had ruptured and were leaking into her body. The silicone was making the symptoms of her Lyme disease even worse. She felt much better once she removed her implants.

Linda Blair, actress in the horror movie The Exorcist, described her experience with breast implants as a nightmare. After removing her implants, she advocated for the FDA to make sure breast implants are actually studied to be safe.

Mary McDonough, a child star in The Waltons who appeared as an adult in shows such as ER and Will and Grace, attributes her autoimmune disease (lupus) to her breast implants. She was healthy before getting implants, and it was only after her implants were removed that she immediately started to feel better. She has been one of the most outspoken celebrities on the risks of breast implants.

Karen McDougal is a former Playboy Playmate and current model who made the decision to have her implants removed after months of feeling sick. She has spoken out about the risks of breast implants in USA Today and People Magazine.

Mariel HemingwaySharon Osbourne, and Stevie Nicks are just a few of the other celebrities who chose to remove their breast implants because of serious health problems.

Celebrities are bringing attention to the health problems that thousands of women with implants have suffered from for decades.

First, a little history:

Women have been getting breast implants since the 1960’s, and although silicone gel implants were drastically restricted for many years during the mid-1990’s through 2005 because of safety concerns, the FDA approved them again in 2006 based on short-term studies done by breast implant manufacturers. FDA also required the manufacturers to do larger, longer-term studies after that, in order to make sure they were safe (these are called post-market studies).

These longer-term studies had a lot of problems, and most women did not stay in the studies long enough to provide useful scientific information.  However, studies have shown that the longer women have silicone breast implants, the more likely they are to experience problems with them.  FDA reported that the studies found that as many as 1 out of every 5 women who get silicone breast implants for cosmetic reasons need to remove their implants within 10 years.[1] This number rises to 1 out of every 2 women if they got reconstruction after a mastectomy.[1]  Were the women who dropped out of the studies the ones that were more likely to have health problems, or less likely?  You can read more about the unanswered questions from these studies here.

Breast implants were approved by the FDA even though research showed that between 15% and 20% of first-time augmentation patients will need additional surgery to fix implant problems within 3 years, whether the implants are filled with silicone gel or saline. [2][3] The chances of needing additional surgery increases as time goes on — 28% of women are on the second set of implants after 3 years, and this number doubles when the women have their implants for 6 years. The percentage is even higher than that for mastectomy patients whose implants were for reconstruction.

What usually goes wrong?

  • Rupture: All breast implants will eventually break, sometimes within a few months or years, and usually within 10 years.
  • Capsular Contracture: This is when the breasts get firm, then hard, and they can be very painful. Breast implants are a “foreign body” and the natural response for most women is that their body forms scar tissue around the implant, inside their body, to protect their body from this “foreign invader.”  This is a natural process. However, it’s called capsular contracture when the scar tissue tightens or hardens around the implants and causes abnormal firmness, hardness, or pain.
  • Pain: Besides pain caused from capsular contracture (see above), breast implants can cause back, neck, and shoulder pain because of their weight. Leaking silicone gel can also cause a painful burning sensation.
  • Autoimmune issues:  Experts disagree on whether breast implants cause specific autoimmune diseases.  However, the fact that implants can cause cancer of the immune system (ALCL) certainly makes it more likely that implants can cause other autoimmune problems.  FDA scientists found that women with ruptured and leaking silicone gel breast implants were more likely to have fibromyalgia, a painful autoimmune disease.[5]  Many women have reported suffering from autoimmune symptoms such as joint pain, hair loss, dry eyes, or mental confusion after getting breast implants, and have also reported that these symptoms often improve or disappear after removing the implants. One study even showed the autoimmune symptoms got better for 3 out of 4 women after they removed their implants.[6]
  • Constant flu-like symptoms: Many women report feeling constantly tired or like they’re trying to get over the flu.
  • Learn more about complications from breast implants in FDA’s consumer handbook.

Besides health problems, some celebrities decide to remove their implants simply because they were annoying or embarrassing. Just to name a few, Heather MorrisHeidi MontagPamela AndersonVictoria Beckhamand Jane Fonda all removed their implants for this reason.

Plastic surgeons refer to breast augmentation as a very simple surgical procedure, and as a result many people think of breast implants as an insignificant surgery with few health risks.  Hearing about celebrities who removed their breast implants sometimes makes women think twice about getting them in the first place.  It helps remind all of us to do careful research before making any decision about putting something inside your body.

 

ALCL Update: In March 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FA) updated its website to report that breast implants could cause a type of cancer of the immune system called Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL). [4]  No celebrities have reported ALCL from their breast implants. .

 

Are you considering breast implants? Find out more information here.

Are you thinking about removing your breast implants? Find out more information here.

Are Breast Implants Safe for Cancer Patients?

Diana Zuckerman, PhD and Patricia B. Lieberman, PhD, Cancer Prevention & Treatment Fund

Although the Institute of Medicine’s report on breast implants is now very outdated, there are still plastic surgeons and other breast implant advocates that quote it.  The purpose of this article is to explain what that report did and did not include.

At the time the Institute of Medicine report was published in 1999, the major controversy about breast implants was whether it could cause connective-tissue diseases or autoimmune diseases.  There were only 17 studies on the subject at the time, but the conventional wisdom was that these studies proved that breast implants are safe.  However, a careful review of the results paints a different picture.

    • These studies do not provide a comprehensive evaluation of diseases among breast implant patients. Most evaluate a few connective-tissue diseases, including such rare diseases as scleroderma and lupus. The studies would have to be much larger to determine whether implants cause these diseases. They would have to include a wider range of health information, including cancer, breast pain, need for additional surgery, and other questions, to conclusively determine if implants are safe.
    • Even for the illnesses that they evaluate, the studies have limitations. In order to conduct an accurate study of implant patients’ health, patients should undergo a comprehensive medical exam. In contrast, most of these studies relied on medical records, which are likely to omit symptoms that the doctor considers less important. A few of the studies relied on self-reported illness, which were criticized because patients might exaggerate their health problems. However, the least meaningful studies were probably those that relied on hospital records; few implant patients would have been hospitalized for their symptoms, since connective-tissue disease, breast pain, and most other health problems that implant patients have reported do not require hospitalization.
    • The studies included women who had implants for a short period of time, such as a few months or years. If implants cause connective-tissue diseases, it would be expected that the disease would develop over a period of years. Diseases might also be more likely after an implant breaks. Therefore, a well-designed study would include women who had implants for at least 7-10 years, not an average of 7-10 years.
    • Most of the studies do not evaluate saline implants. Only one of the studies specifically evaluated the health of women with saline implants.
    • Many of the studies do not evaluate the safety of implants for breast cancer patients.

Mastectomy Patients and Implants

The studies are particularly unpersuasive regarding the health of mastectomy patients. Of the cohort studies, only eight included an analysis of mastectomy patients. Four of the eight studies showed higher rates of diagnosis or symptoms of connective-tissue diseases among women with implants, but in one the difference did not reach statistical significance. The remaining studies may have been too small or may not have followed implant patients long enough to detect significant increases in disease. The case-control studies contained too few breast cancer patients to be meaningful.

Cohort Studies

Cohort studies compare women with breast implants to a group of women who are similar in terms of age, race, and health who did not have breast implants.

Edworthy et al., 1998

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? NO

Friis et al., 1997

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? 1,435 of 2,570
  • Diseases studied: Any classic connective-tissue disease, including lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and scleroderma. Also looked at “other and ill-defined” rheumatic conditions.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? YES
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: To be in this study a woman could have had implants for less than one year.
  • Average length of time with implants: 7.2 years for reconstruction group, 8.4 years for augmentation group.
  • Additional notes: Rates of scleroderma, lupus, and Sjogren’s syndrome in mastectomy patients receiving implants was 30% higher than expected. According to the authors, the study had only limited power to detect an increased risk of any specific connective-tissue disease. Only women who were hospitalized were categorized as ill, not outpatients.

Gabriel et al., 1994, “Mayo Clinic Study”

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? 125 of 749
  • Diseases studied: Any classic connective-tissue disease, including lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and scleroderma. Also looked at other disorders such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, cirrhosis, sarcoidosis, and cancer.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? YES
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: To be in this study a woman could have had implants for less than one year.
  • Average length of time with implants: 7.8 + 5.5 years
  • Additional notes: Women with breast implants had a 35% higher rate of arthritis, which was not statistically significant (relative risk: 1.35). Morning stiffness was 81% higher for implant patients, which was significantly higher than in women without implants (relative risk: 1.81). The authors estimated that they would need to have studied 62,000 women with implants for an average of 10 years to detect a 100% increase (or less) in rare diseases such as scleroderma.

Giltay et al., 1994

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? Approximately 56 of 235
  • Diseases studied: Rheumatic complaints, use of anti-rheumatic drugs, and medical consultations regarding rheumatic symptoms. For those reporting rheumatic symptoms, a rheumatologist made an assessment of the likelihood of a rheumatic disease.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? NO
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: Two years
  • Average length of time with implants: 6.5 years with a range of two to 14 years
  • Additional notes: Women with silicone breast implants reported significantly more rheumatic complaints than controls, but there was no evidence of increased prevalence of common rheumatic diseases, such as fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, or Sjogren’s disease. If mastectomy patients are more vulnerable to diseases than augmentation patients, the results may not accurately describe the health risks for mastectomy patients, since they were a small minority of the women in the study.

Hennekens et al., 1996, “Harvard Women’s Health Cohort Study”

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? 18% of 10,830
  • Diseases studied: Any classic connective-tissue disease including lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and scleroderma. Also included mixed connective-tissue disease.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? YES
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: To be in this study, a women could have had implants for one year.
  • Average length of time with implants: Not stated, but the authors analyzed the women in three groups; up to four years, five to nine years, and 10 or more years after receiving implants and showed no increased risk with increased duration of exposure.
  • Additional notes: Implant patients had a 25% higher rate of connective-tissue disease, whether they were reconstruction or augmentation patients (relative risk: 1.25). This was statistically significant and the researchers concluded that there is a small increased risk of connective-tissue disease among women with implants.

Nyren et al., 1998

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? 3,942 of 7,442
  • Diseases studied: Hospitalizations for classic connective-tissue disease including lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and scleroderma. Also studied hospitalizations for related diseases.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? YES
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: One month
  • Average length of time with implants: Six years for reconstruction patients, 10.3 years for augmentation patients.
  • Additional notes: Only women who were hospitalized for connective-tissue disease were categorized as ill, not outpatients. The authors acknowledge that the sample size was too small to draw conclusions about links between breast implants and rare diseases they studied, such as scleroderma.

Park et al., 1998

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? 207 of 317 implanted women
  • Diseases studied: Signs and symptoms of connective-tissue disease, such as a antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor, joint pain, fatigue, Raynaud’s syndrome, etc.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? YES
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: Not specified
  • Average length of time with implants: Six years for reconstruction patients, five years for augmentation patients.
  • Additional notes: Because the sample size was so small, a health risk would have to exceed 320% for reconstruction patients and 1600% for augmentation patients in order to be statistically significant. In addition, approximately half of the women had implants for less than six years. Because of these shortcomings, this study does not provide useful information.

Sanchez-Guerrero et al., 1995, “The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study”

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES
  • If so, how many? 525 of 1183 for cancer or prophylaxis
  • Diseases studied: Any classic connective-tissue disease, including lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and scleroderma. Excluded women with milder or atypical cases of connective-tissue disease.
  • Were mastectomy patients analyzed separately from augmentation patients? NO
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: One month
  • Average length of time with implants: 9.9 + 6.4 years
  • Additional notes: According to the authors, the study does not exclude small health risks of implants that would be of public health importance. The study was designed to minimize “reporting bias” of health problems by implant patients by excluding any health problems diagnosed after May 1990, which was six months before the major media coverage of implant problems. They did not minimize bias in the opposite direction; for example, they included women who only had implants for one month. Also, they should have excluded women who reported receiving breast implants from 1952 to 1961, prior to the invention of implants. Including these women and their inaccurate statements increased the average years of implantation.

Schusterman et al., 1993

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES, all were mastectomy patients.
  • If so, how many? 250 implanted compared to 353 who had autogenous tissue transplants.
  • Diseases studied: Patients were considered to have rheumatic disease if they had been seen by a physician who made the diagnosis on clinical grounds with corroborating laboratory evidence and had prescribed therapy.
  • Minimum length of time with implants included in study: 10 months
  • Average length of time with implants: Less than 2.5 years
  • Additional notes: Length of follow up was too short to be meaningful. The authors state that the report must be considered preliminary because the onset of autoimmune disorders could occur 2-21 years after implantation.

Weisman et al., 1988

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? NO

Wells et al., 1994

  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? NO

Case-Control Studies

Of the six case-control studies, only two specified that they included any women with mastectomies, and each included only one woman. Therefore, these studies are not useful for evaluating whether implants are safe for mastectomy patients.

Burns et al., 1996

  • Design: Case-control study of women with scleroderma.
  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES, but only one

Englert et al., 1994

  • Design: Case-control study of women with scleroderma.
  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? YES, but only one

Goldman et al., 1995

  • Design: Case-control study of women with rheumatoid arthritis and other connective-tissue disease.
  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? Doesn’t specify

Hochberg et al., 1996

  • Design: Case-control study of women with scleroderma.
  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? NO

Strom et al., 1994

  • Design: Case-control study of women with lupus.
  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? NO

Williams et al., 1997

  • Design: Case-control study of women with connective-tissue disease.
  • Does the study include mastectomy patients receiving implants? NO

All articles are reviewed and approved by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff.

NCHR Comment on the USPSTF’s Draft Recommendations for Ovarian Cancer Screening

National Center for Health Research: August 10, 2017

Comments on the USPSTF’s Draft Recommendations for Ovarian Cancer Screening

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on the draft recommendations for ovarian cancer screening. The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund is a nonprofit think tank that conducts, analyzes, and scrutinizes research, policies, and programs on a range of issues related to health and safety. We do not accept funding from companies that make products that are the subject of our work, so we have no conflicts of interest.

We support the efforts of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to re-evaluate its 2012 grade “D” recommendation in light of new results from a large study, the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). This study confirmed that screening for ovarian cancer does not decrease deaths from ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women who are not known to be at high risk for ovarian cancer. Based on the USTSPF’s robust review of the literature, we agree that there is insufficient evidence to support screening for asymptomatic women.

Effective screening is urgently needed to reduce the number of deaths from ovarian cancer, which is estimated to exceed 14,000 in the United States this year. When ovarian cancer is treated before the cancer has spread outside the ovaries and fallopian tubes, the 5-year relative survival rate is 93%. However, the FDA warns that studies in the medical literature do not provide evidence that currently available ovarian cancer screening tests are accurate and reliable, particularly for asymptomatic women.

We agree with the USPSTF that none of the studies indicated that screening significantly reduced ovarian cancer mortality. Additionally, researchers found that the risks of screening for women are significant, including a high number of false-positive results, which can lead to unnecessary surgery and other medical complications. We agree that these significant potential risks outweigh the benefits of early detection for women with no symptoms of ovarian cancer.

In conclusion, we strongly support the USPSTF’s draft recommendation to maintain the “D” grade for ovarian cancer screening, as well as their broader efforts to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services. We also appreciate the attention to quality of life as an outcome of interest, as this is an important factor. As more high-quality research becomes available, we encourage the provision of additional recommendations about the benefits and harms of using new screening strategies in asymptomatic women who are not known to be at increased risk for ovarian cancer.

The USPSTF issued its final recommendation statement on February 13, 2018. The Task Force maintained its grade D recommendation, meaning it does not recommend ovarian cancer screenings in asymptomatic women. 

References

Food and Drug Administration (2016, September 7). The FDA recommends against using screening tests for ovarian cancer screening: FDA Safety Communication. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm519413.htm

National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer of the Ovary: 5-Year Relative Survival by Stage at Diagnosis (2007-2013). Retrieved from https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/browse_csr.php?sectionSEL=21&pageSEL=sect_21_table.08.html#table5

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2017, July). Draft Recommendation Statement. Ovarian Cancer: Screening. Retrieved from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement174/ovarian-cancer-screening1

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2018, February). Final Recommendation Statement. Ovarian Cancer: Screening. Retrieved from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/RecommendationStatementFinal/ovarian-cancer-screening 

 

 

 

 

NCHR Comment on the USPSTF’s Draft Recommendations for Hepatitis B Virus Infection Screening in Pregnant Women

National Center for Health Research: August 9, 2017

Comment on the USPSTF’s Draft Recommendations for Hepatitis B Virus Infection Screening in Pregnant Women

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on the draft research plan regarding screening for the Hepatitis B virus infection in pregnant women. The National Center for Health Research is a nonprofit think tank that conducts, analyzes, and scrutinizes research, policies, and programs on a range of issues related to health and safety. We do not accept funding from companies that make products that are the subject of our work, so we have no conflicts of interest.

Hepatitis B is a virus infection that is best prevented through vaccination. The risk of infection is especially high for newborns; 90% of infected infants become chronically infected. Chronic Hepatitis B can lead to serious health issues, such as cirrhosis or liver cancer, and in the United States, results in an estimated 1,800 deaths per year. Detecting Hepatitis B infection in pregnant women and preventing transmission to their children would benefit our society greatly by decreasing its disease burden.

Women who are pregnant are at a unique moment in their health care journey, during which they have multiple visits with a provider. Ideally, strong and trusting relationships will develop between women and their doctors. Thus, the capacity for women to acquire knowledge and respond to information regarding screening and potential immunization is greater during pregnancy than at other times and with other providers. This can lead to positive public health outcomes.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) last reviewed the literature in 2009 and reaffirmed their “A” grade for HBV screening for women at their first prenatal visit. We support the efforts of the USPSTF to carefully draft a research plan to guide the systematic review of available evidence for universal screening and case management programs to prevent vertical transmission of the infection as well as reduced rates of morbidity and mortality. We also endorse the efforts of the USPSTF to obtain updated information on the harms and benefits of universal screenings and case management programs for women with Hepatitis B.

We have two recommendations regarding key and contextual questions:

1) While the proposed research questions may intend to refer to both the mother and child, they do not explicitly state the benefits and harms of maternal screening and subsequent immunization or administration of HBIG for children. We believe that explicitly including harms and benefits to children in utero within your proposed questions will improve your research plan.

2) We commend the USPSTF’s inclusion of proposed contextual question #1 to address subgroup analyses. We particularly recommend subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity, mothers’ age, and mothers’ health. Some subgroups of pregnant women may experience different levels of benefits/harms, and this information is critical in making a recommendation for all women. In addition to benefits, we recommend including any harms of repeat screening in the third trimester based on the presence of specific risk factors for different groups of pregnant women.

Universal screening and prevention programs for pregnant women with Hepatitis B can help to identify pregnant women who are at risk for passing the virus to their children. Preventing vertical transmission protects children from a potentially serious disease and other diseases that may develop as a result, such as cancer; protects others who may be infected; and allows children to participate in school and play activities important to their healthy development. Therefore, screening is highly beneficial for these children.

In conclusion, we support the USPSTF’s draft recommendation for Hepatitis B screening in pregnant women as well as their broader efforts to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services.

For questions or more information, please contact Megan Polanin, PhD at mp@center4research.org or at (202) 223-4000.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015, May 31). Viral Hepatitis. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/hbvfaq.htm#overview

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2017, July). Draft Research Plan for Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Pregnant Women. Retrieved from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-research-plan/hepatitis-b-virus-infection-in-pregnant-women-screening

CPTF Response to Senate Health bill

Jack Mitchell, Director of Health Policy, National Center for Health Research, on behalf of Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund: July 14, 2017

The Senate’s revised health bill was revealed on July 13, 2017.

Unfortunately, the revised Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 will result in much worse, not better, health care for Americans than our current healthcare program.

Tell me more about the bill

In its current form, over time the bill will:

  • Devastate Medicaid and make insurance coverage unaffordable to millions: it would reduce/deny health care to millions of Americans, especially people over 50, those that are working or middle-class, and people with disabilities, including addictions requiring treatment. States would have unsustainable costs passed along to them by the federal government, resulting in tax increases or cuts in education and other services.
  • Change what health services may be provided: States would be permitted to change or determine what qualifies as an essential health benefit. This would be life-threatening to many patients and create confusion and inequality throughout the health care system.
  • Result in higher premiums and co-pays for most Americans: Consumers will pay more because the bill does not include a requirement or any incentives for healthy Americans to buy health insurance.  When healthier people don’t buy insurance, that increases the price of insurance for everyone who does buy it.
  • Who benefits? The cuts in Medicaid would save the federal government billions of dollars, but the GOP has made it clear that they will use those savings to reduce the taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  It’s reverse Robin Hood: reduce healthcare for middle class and poorer Americans and use the savings to cut taxes to corporations and the richest Americans.

This legislation will unleash a slowly unwinding health care catastrophe.

Take Action

Make your voice heard today and call your senators!

You can use this national call-in number: 202-224-3121

Tell them to vote NO because this bill would make healthcare unaffordable for millions of Americans. Also, it was created in secret, behind closed doors, with no hearing, debate or public input.

Here are some tips for calling your senators.

Testimony at FDA Advisory Committee Oncology Meeting on Mylotarg (“GO”)

Jack Mitchell, National Center for Health Research, July 12, 2017

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.  I’m Jack Mitchell, Director of Health Policy at the National Center for Health Research (NCHR).  Our research center analyzes medical and scientific data to provide objective health information to patients, providers and policy makers.  We do not accept funding from pharmaceutical or medical device companies, and so I have no conflicts of interest to report.

I’m not a scientist or clinician, but I previously worked in a senior position in FDA’s Office of the Commissioner and we have a number of science and public health PhDs on our staff.  I’m presenting the organization’s views on behalf of the many patients and consumers whom we represent.

While we strongly support the need for more and better treatments for AML (Acute Myeloid Leukemia) patients, we are very concerned about the data used to support the application for GO.  Problems with the trial design raise questions about its validity.

First of all, the only pivotal trial was open label, which increases the risk for bias.  The purpose of blinding in a clinical trial is to control for the placebo effect, since the knowledge that one is taking the newest experimental drug tends to encourage patients and clinicians to have a greater belief in a perceived effectiveness.

Second, all lower grade safety events and some important severe safety events were collected retrospectively, which increases the risk for inaccuracies.  And, which as FDA presenters have noted, limits the analysis of the safety profile.

Third, the trial took place only in France.  This is of note because there are numerous examples of medical products that do not work as well in American patients as they do in patients in other countries.  French patients can have different health habits and health care.  These issues would raise concerns, even if the data supporting approval was strong, which we believe they are not.  Instead, it is not clear that the data support the efficacy or safety of GO.

As I noted previously, the application is based on a single pivotal trial along with a review of the literature.  The pivotal trial does not provide evidence for overall survival, and the previous clinical trial included in the literature review found an inconsistent effect of GO in overall survival.  It is important to remember that this drug was approved based on a single trial and later removed from the market, in part, because the post-market study did not demonstrate effectiveness.

The pivotal trial and literature review do demonstrate improvement in event-free survival.  The trial also shows an improvement in relapse-free survival.  However, the important metric is overall survival, which is not clearly demonstrated.  FDA reviewers and the sponsor’s scientists showed that event-free survival does not correlate well with overall survival.  This especially is a problem in an open label study where the placebo effect can’t be controlled.

Our research center recently published an article in an AMA journal revealing that many cancer drugs have been approved based on surrogate endpoints, such as event-free survival.  But later studies have found that those drugs did not improve overall survival or quality of life.  We found that patients and their insurers were spending $100,000 or more and suffering serious adverse events for treatments that often had no measurable benefit for their health or survival.

The change in dosing does appear to reduce adverse events compared to the earlier version of this medication.  Nevertheless, there were still serious adverse events that can result in death.  The drug was associated with increased bleeding events, including four fatal hemorrhages, and liver disorders, including three fatal cases of VOD (veno occlusive disease).  There were no fatal hemorrhage or VOD events that occurred without exposure to the drug.   However, we acknowledge the sponsor’s efforts to address the ongoing VOD issue and risk profile.

It’s noteworthy that these results were in a clinical trial where patients are carefully monitored.  Patients in the real world are typically monitored less carefully than patients in clinical trials.  As a result, it is possible that more patients could continue on a drug causing serious adverse events because they hope the drug will improve their condition, putting themselves at increased risk.  Well-intentioned doctors who are unaware of the history of the drug may also decide to increase the dose of patients who are not improving, putting patients at greater risk for adverse events without improving the chance for survival.

In summary, surrogate endpoints, such as event-free survival, often do not predict overall survival or other measures of improved health or quality of life.  Given the research design, only one pivotal study, the lack of U.S. patients, and a less than convincing literature review, the data do not support sufficient support for approval.  The studies, in our view, do not provide strong evidence that GO is effective and there are still continuing safety concerns.

We believe that the evidence does not indicate that the benefits outweigh the risks, which is the most single important consideration before you today.  Thank you for providing this opportunity to present our views.

Statement of Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund in Response to CBO Score for Senate Health bill

Jack Mitchell, Director of Health Policy, National Center for Health Research, on behalf of Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund: June 26, 2017

The Senate’s health bill would result in 22 million Americans losing health coverage in the coming decade.

This is no joke. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with their report on the bill today, making it clear that the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 will result in much worse, not better, health care for Americans.

The CBO produces unbiased reports of the effects proposed legislation would have on the American population. It is strictly nonpartisan and objective.

 Tell me more about the bill

In its current form, over time the bill will:

  • Devastate Medicaid: it would reduce/deny health care to millions of poor and elderly, and it will leave states with unsustainable costs passed along by the federal government
  • Change what’s considered essential to your health: States would be permitted to change or determine what qualifies as an essential health benefit. This would be life-threatening to many patients and create confusion and inequality throughout the health care system.
  • Result in higher premiums and co-pays for many Americans: because it does not include a requirement or any incentives for healthy Americans to buy health insurance.  When healthier people don’t buy insurance, that increases the price of insurance for everyone who does buy it.
  • Who Benefits? The CBO says the proposed legislation would save billions of dollars, but the GOP has made it clear that they will use that savings to reduce the taxes on the wealthiest Americans. It’s reverse Robin Hood: reduce healthcare for middle class and poorer Americans and use the savings to cut taxes to corporations and the richest Americans.

This legislation will unleash a slowly unwinding health care catastrophe.

Take Action

Make your voice heard today and call your senators!

You can use this national call-in number: 202-224-3121

Tell them to vote NO because this bill would result in 22 million Americans losing health insurance. Also, it was created in secret, behind closed doors, with no hearing, debate or public input.

Here are some tips for calling your senators.

Here’s the full text of the bill.

A Shocking Diagnosis: Breast Implants “Gave Me Cancer”

Denise Grady, The New York Times: May 14, 2017

Raylene Hollrah was 33, with a young daughter, when she learned she had breast cancer. She made a difficult decision, one she hoped would save her life: She had her breasts removed, underwent grueling chemotherapy and then had reconstructive surgery.

In 2013, six years after her first diagnosis, cancer struck again — not breast cancer, but a rare malignancy of the immune system — caused by the implants used to rebuild her chest.

“My whole world came crumbling down again,” said Ms. Hollrah, now 43, who owns an insurance agency in Hermann, Mo. “I had spent the past six years going to the oncologist every three months trying to keep cancer away, and here was something I had put in my body to try to help me feel more like a woman, and it gave me cancer. I thought, ‘I’m not going to see my kids grow up.’”

Her disease — breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma — is a mysterious cancer that has affected a tiny proportion of the more than 10 million women worldwide who have received implants. Nearly all the cases have been linked to implants with a textured or slightly roughened surface, rather than a smooth covering. Texturing may cause inflammation that leads to cancer. If detected early, the lymphoma is often curable.

The Food and Drug Administration first reported a link between implants and the disease in 2011, and information was added to the products’ labeling. But the added warnings are deeply embedded in a dense list of complications, and no implants have been recalled. The F.D.A. advises women only “to follow their doctor’s recommended actions for monitoring their breast implants,” a spokeswoman said in an email this month.

 Until recently, many doctors had never heard of the disease, and little was known about the women who suddenly received the shocking diagnosis of cancer brought on by implants.

An F.D.A. update in March that linked nine deaths to the implants has helped raise awareness. The agency had received 359 reports of implant-associated lymphoma from around the world, although the actual tally of cases is unknown because the F.D.A.’s monitoring system relies on voluntary reports from doctors or patients. The number is expected to rise as more doctors and pathologists recognize the connection between the implants and the disease.

Women who have had the lymphoma say that the attention is long overdue, that too few women have been informed of the risk and that those with symptoms often face delays and mistakes in diagnosis, and difficulties in receiving proper care. Some have become severely ill.

Implants have become increasingly popular. From 2000 to 2016, the number of breast augmentations in the United States rose 37 percent, and reconstructions after mastectomy rose 39 percent. Annually, nearly 400,000 women in the United States get breast implants, about 300,000 for cosmetic enlargement and about 100,000 for reconstruction after cancer, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Allergan and Mentor are the major manufacturers. Worldwide, an estimated 1.4 million women got implants in 2015.

As late as 2015, only about 30 percent of plastic surgeons were routinely discussing the cancer with patients, according to Dr. Mark W. Clemens II, a plastic surgeon and an expert on the disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“I’d like to think that since then we’ve made progress on that,” Dr. Clemens said.

Late last year, an alliance of cancer centers, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, issued treatment guidelines. Experts agree that the essential first step is to remove the implant and the entire capsule of scar tissue around it. Otherwise, the disease is likely to recur, and the prognosis to worsen.

Not all women have been able to get the recommended treatment. Kimra Rogers, 50, a nursing assistant in Caldwell, Idaho, learned last May that she had lymphoma, from textured implants she had for more than 10 years. But instead of removing the implants and capsules immediately, her doctor prescribed six rounds of chemotherapy and 25 rounds of radiation. A year later, she still has the implants.

“Unfortunately, my doctor didn’t know the first line of defense,” Ms. Rogers said.

She learned about the importance of having the implants removed only from other women in a Facebook group for those with the disease.

Her health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, covered the chemotherapy and radiation but has refused to pay for removal of the implants, and told her that her appeal rights were “exhausted.” In a statement sent to The New York Times, a spokesman said, “Cosmetic breast implants are a contract exclusion, as are any services related to complications of the cosmetic breast implants, including implant removal and reconstruction.”

Physicians dispute that reasoning, saying the surgery is needed to treat cancer. Her lawyer, Graham Newman, from Columbia, S.C., said he was planning a lawsuit against the implant makers, and had about 20 other clients with breast-implant lymphoma from Australia, Canada, England and the United States.

Ms. Rogers has been unable to work for a year. If she has to pay to have the implants removed, it will mean taking out a $12,000 loan.

“But it’s worth my life,” she said.

Insurers generally cover implants after a mastectomy, but not for cosmetic enlargement, which costs $7,500 or more. Repeat operations for complications are also common, and usually cost more than the original surgery.

Diagnosis and Treatment

Most of the cancers have developed from two to 28 years after implant surgery, with a median of eight. A vast majority occurred with textured implants.

Most implants in the United States are smooth. But for some, including those with teardrop shapes that would look odd if they rotated, texturing is preferable, because tissue can grow into the rough surface and help anchor the implant.

Researchers estimate that in Europe and the United States, one in 30,000 women with textured implants will develop the disease. But in Australia the estimate is higher: one in 10,000 to one in 1,000. No one knows why there is such a discrepancy.

What’s inside the implant — silicone or saline — seems to make no difference: Case numbers have been similar for the two types. The reason for the implants — cosmetic breast enlargement or reconstruction after a mastectomy — makes no difference, either.

Symptoms of the lymphoma usually include painful swelling and fluid buildup around the implant. Sometimes there are lumps in the breast or armpit.

To make a diagnosis, doctors drain fluid from the breast and test it for a substance called CD30, which indicates lymphoma.

The disease is usually treatable and not often fatal. Removing the implant and the entire capsule of scar tissue around it often eliminates the lymphoma. But if the cancer has spread, women need chemotherapy and sometimes radiation.

“In the cases where we have seen bad outcomes, it was usually because they were not treated or there was a major delay in treatment, on the level of years,” Dr. Clemens said. Doctors at MD Anderson have treated 38 cases and have a laboratory dedicated to studying the disease.

About 85 percent of cases can be cured with surgery alone, he said. But he added that in the past, before doctors understood how well surgery worked, many women were given chemotherapy that they probably did not need.

Case reports on the F.D.A. website vary from sketchy to somewhat detailed and rarely include long-term follow-up. Some describe initial diagnoses that were apparently mistaken, including infection and other types of cancer. In some cases, symptoms lasted or recurred for years before the right diagnosis was made.

What exactly causes the disease is not known. One theory is that bacteria may cling to textured implants and form a coating called a biofilm that stirs up the immune system and causes persistent inflammation, which may eventually lead to lymphoma. The idea is medically plausible, because other types of lymphoma stem from certain chronic infections. Professional societies for plastic surgeons recommend special techniques to avoid contamination in the operating room when implants are inserted.

“It could also just be the immune system response to some component of the texturing,” Dr. Clemens said. The rough surface may be irritating or abrasive. Allergan implants seem to be associated with more cases than other types, possibly because they are more deeply textured and have more surface area for bacteria to stick to, he said. Allergan uses a “lost-salt” method that involves rolling an implant in salt to create texture and then washing the salt away. Other makers use a sponge to imprint texturing onto the implant surface.

Allergan is studying bacterial biofilms, and immune and inflammatory responses to breast implants, a spokesman said in an email. He said the company took the disease seriously and was working with professional societies to distribute educational materials about it.

Another possible cause is that some women have a genetic trait that somehow, in the presence of implants, predisposes them to lymphoma. Dr. Clemens said researchers were genetically sequencing 50 patients to look for mutations that might contribute to the disease.

Dr. Clemens was a paid consultant for Allergan from 2013 to 2015, but not for breast implants, and no longer consults for any company, he said.

A spokeswoman for Mentor said the company was monitoring reports about the lymphoma, and stood behind the safety of its implants.

[…]

Read the full article here.