All posts by CPTFeditor

Will Breast Implants Improve Your Life?

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Despite the claims of plastic surgeons that breast implants improve patients’ self-esteem and quality of life, there is no scientific support for those statements.  The only scientific data available are from studies conducted by two breast implant companies, Allergan(formerly Inamed) and Mentor.  The companies were required to conduct the studies and provide the results to the FDA when the companies applied for FDA approval for their silicone gel breast implants.  The FDA then reviewed the results and reported them in a summary for each company’s data that is on the agency web site.

The studies included questionnaires for women just before they got breast implants and two years later.  The questionnaires included scientifically valid and reliable measures of self-esteem, self-confidence, and other measures of “quality of life,” including physical health, mental health, and social relationships.  There were three types of patients that were separately studied by each company: breast augmentation patients, breast reconstruction patients (using implants to replace breasts lost to mastectomy), and revision patients.  Revision patients were patients who already had breast implants that needed to be replaced with new implants, so they were studied when they had implants that had ruptured or caused other problems and were soon to get replacement implants, and two years after the implants had been replaced.  The results of those studies are below.

In summary, for Inamed augmentation patients, 12 quality of life scores differed significantly in the pre-test and post-test.  Nine of the 12 (75%) were worse in the post-test.  For Inamed revision patients9 of 9 (100%) that differed significantly were worse in the post-test.  For reconstruction patients, only two scores were significantly different in the post-test, and both showed improvement in physical functioning, which probably reflects the fact that many of these women were being treated for breast cancer at the pre-test and their quality of life was better as cancer survivors two years later.

Inamed (Allergan)

Here are the details from the FDA Summary Panel Memorandum from FDA’s Inamed PMA Review Team, March 2, 2005 (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4101b1_tab-1_fda-Inamed%20Panel%20Memo.pdf)

“With respect to the Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36 and MOS-20), the core augmentation cohort….There were small, statistically significant declines in some subscales of these measures in breast implant recipients over time.  However, the 2-year values for the augmentation cohort were generally numerically higher than normative values for the general female population” (page 71).

Although the FDA summary does not mention it, most of the significant differences showed lower scores on quality of life in the post-test.  Nine of 12 were worse for augmentation patients and nine of 9 were worse for revision patients.

Quality of Life measures include the SF-36, which measures 8 health concepts: physical functioning; role-physical; bodily pain; general health; vitality; social functioning; role-emotional; and mental health.  The 8 scales can then be collapsed into two summary scales with the first 4 scales comprising the Physical, and the last 4 scales comprising the Mental Health.

Inamed Augmentation Patients

All Statistically Significant Changes are as follows:

  • SF-36 Role Emotional:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 Role Physical:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 General Health:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 Social:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 Vitality:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 Mental Health:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • MOS-20 Health Perceptions:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • MOS-20 Mental Health:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Physical Self:  Significantly better in post-test
  • Body Esteem-Total Score:  Significantly better in post-test
  • Body Esteem-Sexual Attractiveness:  Significantly better in post-test
  • Body Esteem-Physical Condition:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • Scores on the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale were worse in the post-test, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Allergan Reconstruction Patients

  • SF-36 Role Physical:  Significantly better in post-test
  • MOS-20 Physical Functioning: Significantly better in post-test

Inamed Revision Patients

  • SF-36 Role Emotional:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 General Health:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • SF-36 Social:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • Mental Health: Significantly worse in post-test
  • MOS-20 Health Perceptions: Significantly worse in post-test
  • MOS-20 Mental Health: Significantly worse in post-test
  • Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Physical Self:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale:  Significantly worse in post-test
  • Body Esteem-Physical Condition:  Significantly worse in post-test

Mentor

Below are the data from the FDA Summary Panel Memorandum from FDA’s Mentor PMA Review Team, March 2, 2005 (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4101b1_Tab-1_fda-Mentor%20Panel%20Memo.pdf)

Similar to the Inamed findings, when there were statistically significant changes from pre-test to post-test for Mentor patients, almost all were worse in the post-test compared to the pre-test.  For augmentation patients, scores on physical health and mental health were significantly worse, scores on the Rosenberg self-esteem scale were better, and there was no change on the Tennessee self-concept scores or body esteem scale.  For revision patients, scores on physical health, mental health, body esteem and Tennessee self-concept scale all were worse in the post-test, and there was no change in the Rosenberg self-esteem scale.  No scores were better in the post-test.  For reconstruction patients, there were no significant changes on any of the scales.

The data below are not as detailed as the Inamed data, because the FDA memo did not provide as much specific information.  However, it includes differences in scores that were provided by the FDA.

Mentor Augmentation Patients

  • Physical Health: Significantly worse in post-test (1.0)
  • Mental Health: Significantly worse in post-test (1.1)
  • Tennessee self-concept scores: No significant change
  • Body Esteem scale: No significant change
  • Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Significantly better in post-test (0.6)

Mentor Reconstruction Patients

  • Physical Health: No significant change
  • Mental Health: No significant change
  • Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: No significant change
  • Body Esteem Scale: No significant change
  • Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale: No significant change

Mentor Revision Patients

  • Physical Health: Significantly worse in post-test (1.8)
  • Mental Health: Significantly worse in post-test (2.5)
  • Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: significantly worse in post-test (6.6)
  • Body Esteem Scale: significantly worse in post-test (5.0)
  • Rosenberg Self-esteem scale: no significant change

FDA also noted the following about the literature review on Quality of Life information (provided by Mentor):

  • Page 70: “…the literature does not provide strong scientific support that breast implants have measurable psychological and psychosocial benefits for women seeking breast augmentation.”
  • Page 73: “Literature that adequately evaluates the short-term or long-term psychological or psychosocial benefits of breast implants as a reconstructive procedure utilizing appropriate control group was not provided by Mentor.”

U.S. Fraud Alert Warns of Doctors’ Ties to Medical Devices

John Fauber, Journal Sentinel: March 27, 2013

The Office of the Inspector General has issued a special fraud alert, warning patients about doctors who also own businesses that sell medical devices that those physicians may then implant in their patients.

Such businesses, known as physician-owned distributorships, pose substantial fraud and abuse risk and may be dangerous to patients, according to the inspector general’s office, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Justice.

For several years, the inspector general, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has voiced concerns about physician-owned distributorships.

The most recent fraud alert, issued Tuesday, focuses on practices of those businesses that may be harmful to patients.

The businesses include entities that derive revenue from selling or arranging the sale of implantable medical devices, including ones that may be designed by the physicians themselves.

In those situations, the distributorships may offer financial incentives to their doctor-owners that may cause them to perform more procedures than are medically necessary and to use devices the distributorship sells instead of more appropriate devices, the inspector general’s office said in its fraud alert.

While such businesses are lawful, the inspector general said that, depending on how they operate, they can violate anti-kickback laws.

“We believe PODs (physician-owned distributorships) are inherently suspect under the anti-kickback statute,” the inspector general’s fraud alert said.

“OIG is concerned about the proliferation of PODs,” it said.

Diana Zuckerman, who has done research on conflicts of interest in medicine, said she was glad to see the fraud alert.

Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said patients trust their doctors to act in their best interest.

“But when doctors have a financial interest in specific medical devices, that can cloud the doctor’s judgment in ways that are terribly harmful to patients’ health and finances,” she said.

Simply informing a patient of the financial conflict is not sufficient, Zuckerman said.

“It is necessary to do away with those financial relationships whenever possible,” she said.

 

Read the original article here.

Statement of Dr. Diana Zuckerman on FDA Approval of new Silicone-Gel Breast Implant Natrelle 410

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, February 21, 2013

Yesterday the FDA quietly approved yet another questionable style of breast implants, the Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Gel Filled Breast Implant made by Allergan, Inc.

The FDA based its approval on data from 941 women, which is a very small sample. The FDA reports that the complications from these implants are similar to those for other breast implants: pain and hardness caused by scar tissue (capsular contracture), the need for additional operations to fix implant problems, the need to remove the breast implants because of problems, uneven appearance (asymmetry), and infection.  The studies also found cracks in the gel of some Natrelle 410 implants, which has not been found in other breast implants.

Unlike other breast implant approvals, the FDA did not hold a public Advisory Committee Meeting to discuss the data, nor did they make the study data public for these new breast implants.  What are they afraid of?  It seems likely that the FDA decided it was better to hide this information than to make it public at a meeting where implant patients could talk about the health problems that have been caused by these implants.

The silicone gel in the Natrelle 410 implant contains more cross-linking compared to the silicone gel used in Allergan’s previously approved Natrelle implant. This increased cross-linking results in a silicone gel that’s firmer. Cross-linking refers to the bonds that link one silicone chain to another. Some physicians believe this will make the implant last longer, but there is no evidence to support that because these implants have only been studied for 7 years.

The FDA admits that Allergan’s studies did not compare the safety and effectiveness of the Natrelle 410 implant to other previously approved silicone gel-filled breast implants on the market.

As a condition of approval for the Natrelle 410 breast implants, Allergan must:

  •  Continue to follow, for an additional five years, approximately 3,500 women who received the Natrelle 410 implants as part of the company’s continued access study;
  • Conduct a 10-year study of more than 2,000 women receiving Natrelle 410 silicone gel-filled implants post-approval to collect information on long-term local complications (e.g., capsular contracture, reoperation, removal of implant, implant rupture) and less common potential disease outcomes (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, breast and lung cancer, reproductive complications);
  • Conduct five case-control studies to evaluate whether women with Natrelle 410 implants, or other silicone gel-filled breast implants, are more likely to develop rare connective tissue disease, neurological disease, brain cancer, cervical/vulvar cancer and lymphoma;
  • Evaluate women’s perceptions of the patient labeling; and
  • Analyze the Natrelle 410 implants that are removed from patients and returned to the manufacturer.

Unfortunately, Allergan has not done a good job of doing post-market studies once their implants have been approved.  And, even if they do these studies, by the time these studies are done to find out what the risks are, hundreds of thousands of women could have these inadequately studied devices in their bodies, and could have been harmed by them.

Statement of Dr. Jennifer Yttri at the Public Hearing on Creating an Alternative Approval Pathway for Certain Drugs Intended to Address Unmet Medical Need

Dr. Jennifer Yttri, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, February 4, 2013

My name is Dr. Jennifer Yttri and I speak today on behalf of the National Research Center for Women & Families.

Our nonprofit research center includes scientists and medical and public health experts who analyze and review research to provide objective and understandable health information to patients, health care providers, and policy makers.  My PhD is in immunology from Washington University.

My statement today also reflects the written remarks of numerous members of the Patient, Consumer, and Public Health Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of nonprofit organizations united to ensure that medical treatments are safe and effective, and to enhance the scientific and public health focus of the FDA.

Thank you for the chance to speak today.  Like everyone here, we recognize the need for new drugs to reach patients with serious or life-threatening diseases but we have grave concerns about how this vaguely defined pathway will improve development of safe and effective drugs.

The FDA already has 6 pathways to quickly get drugs to patients with unmet needs. Where is the evidence that this new pathway is needed? How will it promote development of drugs that help patients live longer or have a better quality of life? Almost 50% of the drugs approved in 2009 and 2011 were through a priority pathway1  so there are many ways to get these drugs to patients.

In the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommendations, from which the FDA’s proposal was derived, the council said such a pathway would be ineffective without changes in the FDA’s approval and regulatory processes to protect patients.  PCAST said that the FDA would need to establish clear guidelines for clinical trials of drugs to prove benefit given serious and unknown risks. They emphasized the harm that this pathway would cause to ALL patients without a change in the FDA’s authority to regulate distribution after drug approval for one indication. Without first addressing these major changes, designing this new approval pathway is premature.

FDA currently requires adequate and well-controlled trials for drug approval.  As you know, there are inherent dangers when drugs are approved based on smaller and shorter clinical trials. The quality of the research is even more important when the study is done on a narrow population.  Small, short-term studies provide limited information about drug toxicity and safety. Small studies can also overestimate the benefits to patients.

Surrogate endpoints have become common in clinical trials, but they still need to be APPROPRIATE. A surrogate endpoint is valid only if it correlates with the outcomes patients care about which are their health, quality of life, and how long they live. The therapeutic must affect the surrogate endpoint in the same way it affects mortality and morbidity. Clarithromycin was great at killing mycobacterium, with a higher mortality in patients with AIDS. Benlysta helps some patients with lupus get rid of their rash but in exchange will leave them susceptible to severe infection or death.  Avastin slowed breast cancer progression but did not extend or improve patientss’ quality of life – in fact, it did the opposite. These are all cases where surrogate endpoints showed promise but later studies proved the opposite.

The proposed pathway can’t promise improved health, quality of life, or lifespan.  It can try to make a drug available sooner, but shorter trials will have LESS information about whether the drug accomplishes ANY of those 3 patient-centered outcomes.

Waiting for data from post-market studies to identify the safety risks means that patients will meanwhile pay for unproven treatments while serve as unwitting guinea pigs.  Patients may die or be harmed for years before post-market studies are completed.

There is an added complication for approving drugs for very small groups of patients. For many of these serious and life-threatening conditions, specific target populations cannot be readily identified prior to clinical trials. A limited population pathway provides an incentive to create smaller trials but NOT ones that use APPROPRIATE studies with the right PATIENTS.

This brings up the problem of off-label use.  If these drugs are to be used in a limited population, physicians need to prescribe these drugs only in patients who clearly fit the limited population AND have no better options.

This is unlikely to happen.  Currently, 21% of all prescriptions, and 62% of pediatric prescriptions are for unapproved use.  Once a product is approved, it is likely to be taken by many patients who are not in the targeted patient group.  Doctors will be tempted to use these drugs on any patient who might benefit, without evidence of its efficacy or risks in a broader population. In the case of antibiotics, a class of drugs likely to seek approval through this pathway, inappropriate use, even one dose, will add to the problem of antibiotic resistance, the very condition we’re trying to fight.

The goal of the proposed pathway is that, at best, only a small number of patients will be harmed by unknown risks since the approval will be for a limited population. With widespread off-label use, thousands of patients will be exposed to unnecessary harm before we understand under what conditions these drugs work and what the safety risks are.

Since 2004, there have been 28 settlements with companies that promoted drugs for unapproved use, often targeting patient populations in whom these drugs have never been tested.   Just last year, major lawsuits were settled against GlaxoSmithKlein, Johnson & Johnson, and Amgen.  This could change, but not for the better. The FDA has so far done nothing to overturn the recent case of United States versus Caronia, which decided that pharmaceutical representatives can promote off-label use under the First Amendment.

The FDA has not developed effective strategies to stop off-label promotion, and therefore will not be able to restrict the use of drugs to the approved limited populations. A study by Chen et al found that physicians were barely above chance in knowing if their prescription was off-label or for an FDA approved use – even though many of these doctors had prescribed the very same drugs for years.

Worse yet, in another study, only 15% of medical providers stated that they provided safety information to patients if it was indicated on a drug label.  A formal designation and logo will not help much at all. Even with some extended educational plan for clinicians and patients, or medical guide inserts, most patients will not fully understand to what extent the drug is proven safe or effective for their needs.

In conclusion, this poorly defined pathway would promote unproven drugs to high-risk patients. We know that there are desperate patients who are willing to take risks, but with smaller, shorter trials, you won’t be able to tell either the patients or the doctors what the risks are.  If approved based on such limited information, there is no doubt that some of these drugs would harm more patients than they help.  Patients, some of whom would never benefit from these drugs, will die or be irreparably harmed.

There are already 6 expedited pathways used in the approval of almost half of all new drugs.  I share the FDA’s desire to help patients with unmet needs to get access to drugs that could possibly help them.  I wish there were a way to do so without jeopardizing patients who have other treatment alternatives or whom we know are unlikely to benefit.  But, wishing isn’t science.  The FDA is a scientific agency, and it has not provided the science to support this proposal.

Chemotherapy: What is it, and How is it Used?

Austin Van Grack, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Types of chemotherapy:

Curative chemotherapy
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy
Palliative chemotherapy
Maintenance chemotherapy

Patient concerns about chemotherapy:

Patient misunderstandings about chemotherapy
Why are patients confused about chemotherapy?
Health literacy and informed decision making about cancer treatments

Chemotherapy is one of the most common cancer treatments used today. However, 1 in 4 patients receiving chemotherapy do not understand why they’re getting it and how it’s supposed to help them.[1]

Chemotherapy is a cancer treatment that uses one or more drugs to kill cancer cells. It stops or slows the growth of cancer cells, which otherwise may grow quickly.[2]

Types of Chemotherapy

Sometimes the aim of chemotherapy is to get rid of or cure the cancer, but other times the goal is to help somebody with incurable cancer live longer or get relief from some of their cancer symptoms. While there are many different drugs used in chemotherapy (alone or in combinations), there are only five types or uses for chemotherapy. You may hear your doctor use one or more of these terms when talking about your chemotherapy:

  • Curative chemotherapy
  • Adjuvant chemotherapy
  • Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy
  • Palliative chemotherapy
  • Maintenance chemotherapy

Curative Chemotherapy

Curative chemotherapy aims to “cure the cancer,” meaning it is intended to eliminate all cancerous cells, resulting in what doctors call “complete remission.” The majority of patients receiving chemotherapy with the goal of cure are receiving chemotherapy as well as surgery or radiation.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Adjuvant chemotherapy is given in addition to other treatments, with the goal of curing cancer or lowering the risk of cancer coming back. Adjuvant therapy is given after surgery or radiation. If given after surgery, it may be called postoperative chemotherapy. Patients usually receive adjuvant chemotherapy when they have a type of cancer that is likely to reoccur, such as breast or colon cancer. Adjuvant therapy may or may not rid the body of all cancer cells but it should at least lower the risk of cancer coming back, or prolong the patient’s life.

Neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (sometimes called preoperative chemotherapy), is also given in addition to other treatments, but it is usually given before surgery in order to shrink the tumor and make it easier to remove or treat with radiation. Sometimes “inoperable tumors” can be surgically removed after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.

For breast cancer patients, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy can sometimes reduce the tumor enough that a woman can choose to have breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy) instead of having her whole breast removed (mastectomy).[3] Most often neo-adjuvant chemotherapy will be used on breast cancer patients with tumors greater than 2 cm in size and where the cancer has not spread to other parts of the body.

It is important to remember that the goal of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy is not to cure the cancer but to give the patients more options for treatment, including treatments that are more effective and less radical.

Palliative Chemotherapy

Non-curative chemotherapy for prolonging life and reducing symptoms is called palliative chemotherapy. Palliative chemotherapy is often given to patients with advanced cancer in hopes of making patients more comfortable toward the end of life.  It is sometimes given in combination with other cancer treatments.

The type of palliative chemotherapy a patient receives depends on the patient’s type of cancer and prognosis. Palliative chemotherapy is usually for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, or colon cancer.

Maintenance Chemotherapy

Maintenance chemotherapy is given to help keep the cancer from coming back in patients whose cancer went away after the initial treatment. In other words, the goal of maintenance therapy is to prevent reoccurrence after the cancer has gone into remission.  This kind of chemotherapy, which may include drugs, vaccines or anything shown to kill cancer cells—may be taken for a longer time than other forms of chemotherapy.[4]

Maintenance therapy is most commonly used by patients who are diagnosed with late stage non-small cell lung cancer. Their cancer usually cannot be completely wiped out but it can be reduced and then kept in check for months or even years. Like palliative therapy, maintenance therapy is aimed at prolonging life and keeping the patient from getting worse, not curing the patient.

Maintenance therapy is also called consolidation therapy, post-remission therapy, intensification therapy, or early second-line therapy.[5] Because chemotherapy has terrible side effects and since maintenance therapy is given over long periods of time, it should only be used if it does more good than harm. The maintenance therapy should help the patient feel better or live longer without prolonging suffering.

Patient Concerns About Chemotherapy

Patient Misunderstandings About Chemotherapy

A study in the journal Cancer by Dr. Inga Lennes and her colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed 125 newly diagnosed cancer patients who were receiving their first round of chemotherapy. The researchers wanted to see if the patients’ perception of chemotherapy and why they were receiving it matched their doctors’ reasons for giving it. Patients were asked, in writing, to choose from four possible responses describing the goal of their treatment as explained to them by their oncologist:

1) to decrease the chance the disease will return, also called adjuvant treatment;

2) to provide a prolonged time without any evidence of disease, also called cure;

3) to control the growth of the cancer without getting rid of it completely to prolong life; and

4) to reduce side effects and symptoms of the cancer to promote your comfort, also called palliation.

Patients were allowed to choose more than one answer. Patients who selected one or both of the first two responses were categorized as viewing their chemotherapy as curative. Those that selected the third or fourth response viewed their chemotherapy as non-curative.

Three out of four patients correctly identified their oncologist’s reason for prescribing chemotherapy. Nearly all of these patients (99%), however, were the ones being given chemotherapy to cure their cancer and keep it from coming back. Among the 25% of patients who did not correctly identify their oncologist’s reason for prescribing chemotherapy, two-thirds (66%) thought the chemotherapy would cure their cancer when, in fact, that was not the oncologist’s goal. Patients who were undergoing non-curative chemotherapy—to prolong life with cancer and reduce symptoms from cancer – had a harder time understanding what their oncologist hoped to achieve than did patients whose chemotherapy was curative.

Why are Patients Confused About Chemotherapy?

There are many possible reasons why patients misunderstand the goal of their chemotherapy.  Studies show that doctors are not good at communicating bad news and want to appear hopeful.  They may provide written information that some patients can’t understand.

Physician and Patient Optimism

When the prognosis is bad (the patient is not going to survive the cancer), physicians may be deliberately unclear or vague, or they may be overly optimistic about the patient’s chances. As a result, patients have a difficult time accepting that their disease is incurable.

Studies have found that cancer patients want their doctors to “maintain an attitude of hope”, but doing so may mislead or confuse patients with advanced cancer. A small study of 28 patients in three hospitals in England taped the first consultation after the patient had received his or her diagnosis, usually after surgery to remove the cancer had been performed.[6] They found that when doctors are discussing bad or uncertain news about a patient’s prognosis or treatment, they pair it with some positive information.  For example, in one conversation between a patient with laryngeal cancer and his doctor, the doctor gave the bad news that his cancer probably would not be cured, quickly followed by hopeful news and the statement that there is a “very good chance” that radiation “will work.”  This good news-bad news approach can confuse patients and result in unrealistic expectations of treatment.

A study in Australia, using recorded conversations between 118 patients and 9 oncologists, found that 3 out of 4 patients had been told that their cancer was incurable, and 85% had been informed of the aim of treatment.[7] After giving the information, only 10% of physicians checked to see if the patient actually understood it. One way to check if the patient has understood is to have her explain to the doctor what she just heard in her own words.

A different study found that patients who incorrectly believed that their chemotherapy would cure their cancer were the ones who gave their doctors the highest communication scores.[8] Clearly, doctors who put a positive spin on a patient’s condition may be the most popular, but their mixed messages are confusing to patients.

Patients with incurable cancer need optimism to help them cope  with the news that they are going to die.[9] While maintaining hope in the face of death is important, patients with too sunny an outlook can have  unrealistic expectations of treatment.

Health Literacy and Informed Decision Making About Cancer Treatments

Health literacy is the ability of patients to understand health information presented to them that they need to make appropriate health decisions. All patients face the challenge of making treatment decisions based on the information their physicians have provided them. This is especially true for cancer patients, who are faced with new medical terminology, unclear statistics, and often-vague prognoses. Experts agree that the lack of health literacy among cancer patients may make it difficult for them to understand their treatments and their prognosis.

Patients over the age of 60 have some of the lowest levels of health literacy, with as many as 80% struggling to understand paperwork given to them by their doctors, including consent forms.[10] In the U.S., younger patients and patients who are native English speakers understand the purpose of their chemotherapy better than older patients or non-native English speakers.

Patients with low health literacy are less likely to ask questions when they don’t understand what they’re reading or what they’re doctor has told them. This is a chicken and egg situation: people with low health literacy lack the confidence or educational and cultural training to ask questions of people with authority (doctors). Meanwhile, the failure to ask questions and get doubts resolved contributes to low health literacy.

Over the last decade, there has been a shift in the medical community from the concept of informed consent, in which patients agree to the doctor’s recommended course of treatment, to the idea of informed decision-making, in which patents and doctors exchange information, ask each other questions, and come to a final treatment decision together as a team. This more patient-centered approach can help cancer patients understand the goal of their care.

In addition, research shows that cancer patients who asked their doctors at least three questions had a better understanding of their treatment options and were more confident in making decisions.

The Bottom Line

  • 1 out of 4 patients receiving chemotherapy do not understand the goal of therapy.
  • The lack of patient understanding is due to a number of factors, including poor and overly optimistic communication between doctors and cancer patients, low health literacy among patients, and the many new terms used in explaining chemotherapy.
  • Patients who misunderstand the goal of their chemotherapy may opt for longer or more aggressive treatment than they would if they understood their prognosis better.
  • To improve communication between cancer patients and their doctors, doctors should use the communication technique known as “ask, tell, ask.” Doctors first ask what the patient wants to know, then they provide the information the patient has asked for, and then they ask the patient to explain what they’ve just learned.8
  • Doctors should regularly ask their patients to summarize what they have just heard, including the goal of the chemotherapy.  Patients should ask doctors questions, including asking what terms mean as well as anything they are uncertain or worried about.

References:

    1. Lennes IT, Temel JS, Hoedt H et al. Predictors of Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients’ Understanding of the Goals of Their Care at Initiation of Chemotherapy. Cancer. 2012; DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27787
    2. National Cancer Institute. Chemotherapy and You: Support for People With Cancer. Accessed November 28, 2012. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/chemotherapy-and-you/page2.
    3. Thompson AM, Moulder-Thompson SL. Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2012;23:231-36. Doi:10.1093/annonc/mds324.
    4. National Cancer Institute.  NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms. Accessed November 9, 2012. http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary?CdrID=45768
    5. Owonikoko TK, Ramalingam SS, Belani CP. Maintenance Therapy for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Status, Controversies, and Emerging Consensus. Clinical Cancer Research. 2010;16:2496-2504. Doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2328.
    6. Leydon GM. “Yours is potentially serious but most of these are cured”: optimistic communication in UJ outpatient oncology consultations. Psycho-Oncology. 2008; 17: 1081-88. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1392.
    7. Gattellari M, Vaigt KJ, Butnow, PN et al. When the Treatment Goal Is Not Cure: Are Cancer Patients Equipped to Make Informed Decisions? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002; 20; 2:503-13.
    8. Weeks JC, Catalano PJ, Cronin A et al. Patients’ Expectations about Effects of Chemotherapy for Advanced Cancer. NEJM. 2012; 367:1616-1625. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204410
    9. Smith TJ, Longo DL. Talking with Patients about Dying. NEJM. 2012; 367:1651-1652. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1211160.
    10. Amalraj, Sunil, et al. Health literacy, communication, and treatment decision-making in older cancer patients. Oncology 15 Apr. 2009: 369. Academic OneFile. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.

Public Health Implications of Differences in US and European Union Regulatory Policies for Breast Implants

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Nyedra Booker, PharmD, MPH, and Sonia Nagda, MD, MPH

Published in Reproductive Health Matters, December 2012

Tens of thousands of defective silicone breast implants were recalled in Europe in 2011–12 soon after the FDA’s unrelated announcement that a rare cancer of the immune system was associated with all saline and silicone gel breast implants. These developments raised questions about whether U.S. and European regulations were protecting patients from unsafe medical implants.

In the US, breast implants are regulated as high-risk medical devices that must be proven reasonably safe and effective in clinical trials and subject to government inspection before they can be sold. In contrast, clinical trials and inspections have not been required for breast implants or other implanted devices in Europe. As a result of these differing standards, the PIP breast implants that were recalled across Europe had been removed from the market years earlier in the US. Nevertheless, the FDA track record on breast implants indicates that studies have provided limited information about safety.

The authors conclude that neither the European Union nor the US has used their regulatory authority to ensure the long-term safety of breast implants. However, in 2012 the EU announced regulatory changes that could improve that situation.

To see the official summary: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23245415

Is Newer and More Expensive Care Better?

Sarah Miller, RN and Laura Covarrubias

Is more medical care really better? What about all these new, expensive drugs and high-tech surgeries? Do they save lives or improve health?

If you answered yes to these questions, you are not alone, but you may not be correct. A study done by the American Institutes for Research on insured adults between ages 18 and 64, found that most thought that more care, newer medical technology, and more expensive care were better. In addition, the adults interviewed believed that all care met minimum quality standards, and they were skeptical of evidence-based medical guidelines.

A typical response was “I don’t see how extra care could be harmful to your health. Care would only benefit you.” Although this belief is widely held, it is not accurate.  For example, if a healthy 80-year old man or woman without cancer symptoms is screened for various types of cancer, any abnormal findings are likely to result in treatment that is unlikely to benefit them.  That is why the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force usually recommends against screening 80-year olds for these cancers, although they recommend diagnostic testing for patients of all ages if they have symptoms.

“You get what you pay for” is another popular opinion, with many people assuming that more expensive care is superior. However, care that is far less expensive is sometimes just as good or even better.  One example of this is robotic prostatectomy, a surgery for men with prostate cancer that is done by a robot operated by the surgeon. Many men want this type of surgery, which costs $2,600 more than a regular prostate surgery. Some studies have shown that men who have the robotic surgery have lower rates of complications after the surgery, but others have shown that there is no difference. Most researchers who have conducted studies on this agree that the robotic surgery has not yet been proven to be any better than regular prostate surgery.

Even if robotic surgery isn’t worse than the regular surgery, is it worth the extra $2600? Consider this: for every two insured men that choose to have regular rather than robotic surgery, the cost savings could more than pay for one uninsured man with prostate cancer to have this life-saving surgery.[5] This is important to consider in the United States, where many people are not able to afford their medical care.

A similar idea that many patients have is “if it’s newer, it’s better.” While it may seem like new treatments would be chosen because they are better, this is rarely true. For example, cetuximab (also called Erbitux) was introduced in 2008 as a new addition to treatment for lung cancer patients. Although the drug was called a breakthrough in treatment for lung cancer, the average patient taking the drug lived only 1.2 months longer than patients not taking the drug. And in the many months of taking the drug, 85% of patients experienced skin toxicity, which often caused great discomfort (Fojo & Grady).  And despite the small possible advantages of the drug, it cost $80,000 for just a few months of treatment, resulting in huge medical bills that many families could not afford.  Avastin for Stage 4 breast cancer is an even more dramatic example.  Avastin is used for many cancers, but after several years, it became clear that on average, the breast cancer patients taking it were not living any longer and were more likely to have a stroke or other very serious and debilitating reaction to the drug that could make their last months much more painful physically and psychologically.

Cereal companies regularly add “New” in big letters on cereal boxes, because that sells more products (even if what is new might be a new toy inside).  Patients should be more cautious.  While some patients may want to take the chance that a new drug might be better, but many would rather know what the risks are before trying a new medication that could be worse than the tried and true treatments.

Evidence-Based Guidelines

Medical guidelines are usually established by a group that is considered expert in the subject of the guidelines. Medical guidelines are usually based on evidence from scientific research and are written according to the agreement a group of experts comes to about what the research tells them is the best for patients.

Unfortunately, research indicates that many adults are skeptical about guidelines.  Many seemed to think that asking providers to use guidelines did not allow them to make decisions based on their own expertise and that they could be used to ration care so that people did not “take” too much. One participant said that medical guidelines are “taking your choice away and putting it in someone else’s hands.”

Contrary to the mistaken belief that providers were restricted to actions dictated by the guidelines, in reality, guidelines are meant to guide providers by making suggestions based on the best evidence. Providers are still able to make the final recommendation to patients based on their professional expertise.

Is a doctor’s individual experience more valuable than guidelines?  That’s hard to say, but usually it would not be.  Guidelines are based on evidence from medical research comparing large groups of people who have had different types of treatment. Therefore, guidelines based on science will, on average, provide the best care for most people.  However, a physician with impressive expertise may be able to predict which patients are more likely to benefit from other types of treatment.

For example, for years, it was recommended that women between 40 and 69 years of age have a mammogram every year to screen for breast cancer. In 2007, however, the American College of Physicians changed their guidelines to leave it up to physicians to decide whether women between 40-50 needed annual mammograms.  In 2009, the US. Preventive Services Task Force wrote new guidelines, based on research evidence from thousands of women. The new guidelines recommended that women age 40-49 should not have regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer unless they had an especially high risk of breast cancer, and that women age 50-75 should have screening mammograms every two years – extending the age to older women but cutting the frequency from annually to every other year.

Many people challenged the new guidelines believing they could substantially delay the detection of cancer, especially for women under 50.  Isn’t it always better to have a chance to detect cancer earlier?

The answer is yes and no. Although mammograms save the lives of many women (including those in their 40’s), they also expose women to harmful radiation that can actually cause cancer over the course of women’s lifetimes. The researchers considered other forms of harm as well, such as the emotional trauma of a “false positive” results that result in stressful and expensive biopsies.  They concluded that the potential for harm outweighed the potential benefits of mammograms for the average women under age 50 and over 75, as did annual rather than biyearly mammograms for women age 50-75.

Many people did not agree with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s interpretation of the evidence, however.  It is partly a matter of interpretation.  The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was advising average women, and some cancer advocates believe that it is too difficult to predict whether a person is at high risk or not.  As a result, groups such as the American Cancer Society prefer to err on the side of over-treatment and radiation exposures, rather than on the side of potential under-treatment and reducing radiation exposure.

Health care providers are able to judge the two sets of guidelines and decide what to recommend for specific patients. For example, a woman in her 30’s who has many family members with breast cancer, including some at a young age, may be advised to have digital mammograms every other year in their 30’s (because they are more accurate than traditional mammograms and use less radiation) and annually after that.

“All care meets minimum quality standards” is another common belief.  Most could imagine providers making an occasional mistake, but few thought that there were any providers who consistently delivered a quality of care that did not meet basic standards.[1] Unfortunately, research shows that health care varies from doctor to doctor, and many do not meet minimum quality standards. The quality of care that doctors provide varies by the type of clinic where they work (publicly or privately funded, for instance), the communication skills of the doctor, and even how much sleep the doctor has been getting (Manusukhani; Kenny; Philipson).

What Can We Learn From This?

This study gives some insight into why we spend so much on health care and why efforts to improve medical care are often opposed as “rationing” or “death panels.” Unfortunately, most patients want the newest and most expensive care, and don’t understand that it may not be as safe or as effective as older, less expensive treatments.

In the United States, we spend more per person on health care than any other country, and yet our citizens are not as healthy as those in Japan, France, and Cuba, countries that spend far less per person on health care.

In addition to wasting money on treatments that are no better, and are sometimes inferior, our wasteful spending also means that we have less money for other essential services, such as education, housing, and national security.4

Of course, there is a lot of very expensive medical care that is medically necessary and could save a person’s life, such as trauma care in an emergency room for someone who has been in a serious car accident. But, there are also popular treatments that are expensive and not necessary, like a woman having labor induced for convenience when it would be safer and less expensive to have a natural birth. The key is to eliminate the unnecessary care so that we can continue to afford the necessary, beneficial care.

When it is not clear whether more expensive care actually helps or is just a waste of money, medical research can point us in the right direction. That’s why it is a good strategy to require “comparative effectiveness research” to determine whether, for example, robotic prostate surgery is better than regular surgery, or just needlessly more expensive.  It is often not obvious which treatments are the best, and sometimes they are the most expensive treatments but other times they may be the least expensive treatments or no treatment at all.

Doctors and patients can be part of improving medical care, by asking whether research conclusively shows which treatment is safer and which is most effective, instead of wrongly assuming that guidelines are aimed at saving money, not improving care.

References:

  1. Carman, KL; Maurer, M; Mathews, J; Dardess, P; McGee, J; Evers, M; & Marlo, KO, Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care, Health Affairs, 7 1400-6, 2010.
  2. Centers for disease control and prevention. Births: Final data for 2006, National Vital Statistics Reports.
  3. Caughney, AB; Sundaram, V; Kaimal, AJ; Cheng, YW; Geinger, A; Little, SE; Lee, JF; et.al. Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of induction of labor. Evid Rep Technol Assess. 176 pp.1-257, 2009.
  4. Bodner-Adler, B; Bodner, K; Patiesky, N; Klimberger, O; Chalubinski, K; Mayerhofer, K; & Husslein, P; Influence of labor induction on obstetric outcomes in patients with prolonged pregnancy: A comparison between elective labor induction and spontaneous onset of labor beyond term. The Middle European Journal of Medicine. 117(7-8) pp. 287-92, 2005.
  5. Bolenz, C; Gupta, A; Hotze, T; Ho, R; Cadeddu, JA; Roehrborn, C; & Lotan, Y; Cost Comparison of Laproscopic, Robotic, and Open Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer, European Urology, 57 pp. 453-8, 2010.
  6. Lowrance, WT; Elkin, EB; Jacks, LM; Yee, DS; Jang, TL; Laudone, VP; Guillanneau, BD, Scardino, PT; & Eastham, JA, Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments: A population-based analysis of postoperative outcomes, The Journal of Urology, 183, 1366-72, 2010.
  7. Weizer, AZ; Strope, S; and Wood, DP, Margin control in laproscopic robotic prostatectomy: What are the REAL outcomes? Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 28 pp.201-14, 2010.
  8. Barocas, DA; Salem, S; Kordan , Y; Herrell, SD; Chang, SS; Clark, PE; Davis, R; Baumgartner, R; Phillips, S; Cookson, MS; & Smith, JA, Robotic assisted laproscopic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival, The Journal of Urology, 183, 990-6, 2010.
  9. Murphy, DC; Bjartell, A; Ficarra, V; Graefen, M; Haese, A; Montironi, R; Montorsi, F; Moul, JW; Novara, G; Sauter, G; Sulser, T; & van der Poel, H, Downsides of robot-assisted laproscopic prostatectomy: Limitations and complications. 57 pp. 735-46, 2009.
  10. Coelho, RF; Chauhan, S; Palmer, KJ; Rocco, B; Patel, MB; & Patel, VR, Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A review of outcomes, British Journal of Urology International, 104, 1428-35, 2009.
  11. US Preventive Services Task Force, Screening for breast cancer: Recommendation statement 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm  on July 20, 2010.
  12. American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer: Breast Cancer, 2010, Retrieved From: http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/FindCancerEarly/CancerScreeningGuidelines/american-cancer-society-guidelines-for-the-early-detection-of-cancer  on July 20, 2010.
  13. Smith, S; Newhouse, JP; & Freeland, MS; Income, insurance and technology: Why does health spending outpace economic growth? Health Affairs, 28(5) pp. 1276-84, 2009.
  14. Aaron, HJ and Ginsburg, PB; Is health spending excessive? If so, what can we do about it? Health Affairs

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Lung Cancer

Tiffanie Hammond, Amrita Ford, MA, Brandel France de Bravo, MPH, and Jessica Cote, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

What is COPD, and What Causes It?
Gender Differences in COPD
How is COPD Diagnosed?
Not Everyone Defines COPD the Same Way
The Controversy Surrounding COPD Screening
Treatment Options and Prognosis
What Does This Have To Do with Lung Cancer?
How are COPD and Lung Cancer Linked?
Could COPD Patients be the Best Candidates for Lung Cancer Screening?
You Think You Might Be at Risk for COPD and/or Lung Cancer. Now what?

 

Did you know that more than half of all people with lung cancer have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)? In fact, depending on the way COPD is diagnosed, 50-90% of lung cancer patients suffer from COPD.[1] Some people with lung cancer don’t find out that they have COPD until they’ve already been diagnosed with cancer. Could testing for COPD be a way of catching lung cancer earlier? We know that smokers with COPD are much more likely to develop lung cancer than smokers without it, but what about people who don’t smoke—can they get COPD, and if so, are they also at increased risk of developing lung cancer?

If you’ve never touched a cigarette in your life and have lung cancer, there is a chance it’s because you have COPD. A 2008 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine estimated that COPD was responsible for 10% of lung cancer cases among people who don’t smoke.[2] COPD is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., and there are over 12 million people currently diagnosed with the disease.[3] Experts believe that the real number of people with COPD is twice that.[4]

While cigarette smoking is the leading cause of COPD, people who have never smoked make up 20% or more of all COPD cases[5] Interestingly, 4 out of 5 non-smokers with COPD are women. People who never smoked make up approximately 15% of diagnosed cases of lung cancer, and as with COPD, the majority of lung cancer patients who never smoked are women.  One out of 5 women diagnosed with lung cancer have never smoked whereas in men who develop lung cancer, only 1 out of 12 have never smoked.[6,7]

What is COPD, and What Causes It?

COPD is a progressive disease that causes airflow obstruction, making it more difficult for a person to breathe. COPD can take the form of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. Chronic bronchitis is the inflammation and scarring of the lung’s bronchial tubes, or air passages, which results in frequent coughing and the formation of thick mucus in the airways.  In emphysema, the walls of the tiny air sacs in the lungs are damaged and destroyed over time which leads to reduced gas exchange in the lungs.  Most people with COPD have a combination of both chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

COPD can’t be cured but its symptoms can be managed and controlled through various treatments, including medicines and pulmonary rehabilitation. Pulmonary rehabilitation includes exercise training, counseling, breathing strategies, and energy conservation techniques.

The leading cause of COPD is smoking;[8] smokers’ risk for the disease ranges from 35% to as high as 50%.[9] Second-hand smoke is also a major risk factor. A 2012 Norwegian study suggests that childhood exposure to tobacco smoke doubles the risk of girls developing COPD as adults.[10] Men exposed to tobacco smoke as children did not share the same heightened risk as women, but early exposure to tobacco smoke increases the risk of certain COPD symptoms in men, such as chronic cough. Other COPD risk factors include age, environmental and occupational exposures to pollution, dust and chemical fumes, a family history of COPD, a prior diagnosis of asthma, cooking with fire without proper ventilation, and in rare cases, having a genetic condition called alpha-1-antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency. AAT is a naturally occurring protein that protects the lungs from damage. People who don’t have enough of the protein are more likely to develop emphysema.[11]

Gender Differences in COPD

From 1998-2009, more women were diagnosed with COPD than men. Although overall death rates from COPD were lower in women than men, death rates in men decreased during this time period while death rates among women stayed the same.[12] No one is certain why this is, but there are differences in the way men and women are diagnosed and treated for COPD that may contribute to the disparity.

Even when they have the same symptoms, women with COPD are often misdiagnosed initially as having asthma, are less likely to be referred to specialists, and are therefore less likely to be treated quickly, accurately, and effectively for COPD compared to men. Women with COPD also report more severe symptoms and experience a lower quality of life. Women who are dependent on oxygen have a 50% increased risk of death from COPD as opposed to men on oxygen.[13]

How is COPD Diagnosed?

COPD is estimated to be undiagnosed or misdiagnosed in about 50% of the 24 million men and women estimated to have COPD in the U.S. Many people are not aware they have it until symptoms such as coughing, shortness of breath (dyspnea), increased mucus production, and wheezing develop slowly over time. Many patients fail to report symptoms to their doctors because they assume these symptoms are a normal part of aging and are unaware of the symptoms of COPD. Many smokers just assume that the symptoms they are experiencing are due to smoking and not to something more serious.[14] However, diagnosing patients with COPD from symptoms alone leads to errors of overdiagnosis. Studies have shown that the best method for diagnosing COPD is spirometry, which is a common and inexpensive office test that measures lung capacity. Spirometry can detect COPD even before symptoms become apparent and can be used to track the progression of COPD and determine if a treatment is working. Other methods used to diagnose COPD include chest x-rays, computed tomography (CT) scans, listening to the lungs with a stethoscope, and arterial blood gas tests that determine oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the blood. In general, spirometry is used to detect airflow obstruction and low-dose CT is used to diagnose emphysema. Spirometry is usually used for standard COPD screening because it’s safe and inexpensive, but CT screening is sometimes necessary to diagnose people with emphysema who don’t also have airflow obstruction.

Over the years, various evidence-based guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD have been developed to assist healthcare professionals in their management of the disease. In 2001, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), in conjunction with experts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization, published guidelines for physicians based on the latest research and recommendations.[15] The GOLD guidelines were updated in 2006 and again in 2011. Professional societies like the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, and others have also published their own COPD guidelines, all with the same goal of educating healthcare professionals and improving COPD outcomes.[16]

Despite the availability of these guidelines for COPD, one of the most significant barriers to diagnosing COPD is a lack of knowledge among primary care professionals. A survey conducted in 2008 by Barbara Yawn and Peter Wollan at Olmsted Medical Center found that fewer than half of primary care professionals (family physicians, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants) knew about or used accepted guidelines for diagnosing COPD. A little over 20% reported using no COPD guidelines, 10% were unaware of what the current COPD guidelines are, 11% admitted using guidelines for asthma to diagnose and treat COPD, and only 7% tested for alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency regularly. Even when these primary care physicians had spirometry in their offices, only 31% used it on suspected cases of COPD. Furthermore, only 1 in 5 primary care professionals referred all or most of their COPD patients to lung specialists.[17] This is alarming because lung specialists tend to follow the established COPD guidelines more closely than primary care physicians, and without their seeing COPD patients, the opportunity for early diagnosis and treatment may be lost.[18]

Too many primary care providers are unable to distinguish asthma from COPD and don’t recognize that women are at higher risk for COPD than men. Over a third (38%) of primary care physicians felt it was difficult to distinguish COPD from asthma, and 78% thought COPD was primarily a disease that affects men. When COPD symptoms are misdiagnosed as asthma, women receive the wrong treatment, and the correct COPD treatment is delayed.

Perhaps one of the biggest barriers to diagnosis, though, is the failure of patients to report symptoms to their doctor. People who feel guilty about smoking may decide not to tell their doctor about symptoms, or like non-smokers with COPD who think their symptoms are due to getting older, they may simply cut back on physical activity.4 When patients adapt to their increasing breathlessness and don’t mention it to their doctors, an opportunity to educate primary care providers about COPD—how widespread it is and whom it affects—is lost. This hurts people suffering from COPD and medical professionals alike.

Not Everyone Defines COPD the Same Way

There is no single standard for defining COPD with spirometry, which may account for some of the misdiagnosis of the disease. The GOLD definition of COPD is widely accepted: a FEV1/FVC of less than 0.70, which is the ratio of how much air a patient is able to exhale in 1 second (FEV1) to the total volume of air a patient can exhale in one breath (FVC).[19] The GOLD guidelines also classify COPD into 4 stages from mild to very severe based on other calculations.

The GOLD definition tends to over-diagnose COPD in the elderly since one value in the FEV1/FVC ratio decreases with age more rapidly than the other. An alternative definition is the lower limit of normal (LLN) definition of COPD, which takes age into consideration and compares the FEV1/FVC ratio of a patient to that of a healthy person who is the same age. Researchers found that while the GOLD definition tended to over-diagnose COPD, the LLN definition under-diagnosed COPD in some symptomatic patients.[20] Collecting more information during spirometry readings, such as total lung capacity (TLC), reduced the number of misdiagnoses. Another study found that sex differences in diagnoses are influenced by the COPD definition used.[21] When the GOLD definition of COPD was used, men had a higher risk of COPD, but among smokers, women were more likely to be diagnosed with COPD due to their increased susceptibility to cigarette smoke. However, when the LLN definition was used, there was no significant difference between male and female risk for COPD and no evidence of increased susceptibility to COPD among female smokers. Without an agreed upon standard for defining COPD, it is difficult to diagnose COPD definitively or to understand the different risk factors.

The Controversy Surrounding COPD Screening

In 2000, the National Lung Health Education Program (NLHEP) recommended that all smokers age 45 and older be screened using lung function tests, like spirometry, to identify undiagnosed COPD.[22] This led to widespread screening and spirometers in doctors’ offices everywhere. However in 2007, the American College of Physicians recommended that only patients with respiratory symptoms be screened with spirometry and not asymptomatic individuals, regardless of smoking history or age.[23]  In 2008, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force followed suit and recommended against screening healthy adults without any respiratory symptoms for COPD using spirometry, stating that it had no overall benefit. The recommendation does not apply to individuals who have symptoms such as wheezing and chronic cough or people with a family history of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency who should be screened. (Few people are aware of whether they or their relatives have alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, but the test to screen for it is very inexpensive.)

The Task Force determined that the harms of spirometry screening, which include misdiagnoses and adverse effects from unnecessary treatment, outweighed the possible benefits of treatment and pulmonary rehabilitation. Spirometry can result in substantial over-diagnosis of COPD in never-smokers aged 70 and older, but there are fewer false-positives in other healthy adults who are screened. The Task Force found that although treatments can prevent COPD from worsening, patients with severe COPD die at the same rate whether or not they receive treatment. COPD treatments have also been associated with negative side effects in some patients, such as elevated heart rate and infections. Unfortunately, the Task Force found that providing smokers with their spirometry results did not necessarily result in more smokers quitting, and a favorable spirometry reading could actually discourage smokers from quitting.

According to the Task Force recommendation, patients with severe or very severe COPD who would stand to gain the most from screening make up less than 10% of those identified as having COPD using current diagnostic criteria. This means that hundreds of smokers would have to be screened to identify one person who would benefit. The Task Force concluded that widespread spirometry screening is likely to identify many patients with mild to moderate COPD who would not experience any substantial benefits from being diagnosed and treated. However, no one really knows if that is true: patients with mild or moderate COPD and patients without symptoms are rarely included in drug trials for COPD treatments, and without studies there is no evidence one way or the other.[24]

While the USPSTF has weighed in against widespread screening, there is no evidence that spirometry itself causes any significant adverse effects. Spirometry is noninvasive, low cost, and a fast way to determine lung function. Current or former smokers should speak with their physicians about the risks and benefits of being screened and see if their insurance will cover it.

Spirometry in combination with other clinical methods has been shown to be an effective COPD screening in some studies. In 2008, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation developed a 3-part approach to screening the general population for COPD.[25] First, a patient would answer a brief questionnaire about exposure to COPD risk factors and possible symptoms. Peak expiratory flow (the maximum amount of air that a person can forcibly exhale) would then be measured in the patient. If the peak expiratory flow was less than 70% of the predicted value, only then would spirometry be performed. The study found that the 3-step approach was useful for ruling out COPD in the general population and preventing false-positive results. However, the approach was not as accurate at detecting COPD in patients who had it. Another study looked at a validated COPD assessment test (CAT), which is a questionnaire asking about symptoms in their daily lives, on a random sample of the population.[26] The researchers found that smoking history, age (55 and older), and the presence of breathlessness were all key factors in identifying individuals at risk for COPD who would benefit from spirometry screening.

Treatment Options and Prognosis

There is no cure for COPD but symptoms can be managed through several treatment options, none of which have been shown to make people with COPD live longer.  Medications, such as bronchodilators which relax the airway muscles to make breathing easier, are administered using an inhaler.

  • Bronchodilators. There are two types of bronchodilators: B2 agonists and anticholinergics. Each type can be short-acting (taken only when needed and not more than every 4-6 hours) or long-acting (taken every 12 hours or more, everyday), and some people use both types. Both B2 agonists and anticholinergics improve symptoms and lung function, but neither extends patients’ life span. Anticholinergics have been shown to be more effective in preventing symptoms from getting worse compared to long-acting B2 agonists (LABAs). LABAs appear to cause more side effects than anticholinergics, but some people find that LABAs offer them more relief than anticholinergics.[27]
  • Inhaled Glucocorticosteroid. These reduce the body’s immune response and so, decrease inflammation. People who have moderate or severe COPD or are experiencing flare ups or worsening symptoms may be prescribed an inhaled glucocorticosteroid. A patient taking one of these will continue to have a declining quality of life but a slower decline than without the inhaled steroid. A patient’s breathing capacity will continue to deteriorate but the glucocorticosteroids allow the patient to be less bothered or limited by the decline. Side effects of glucocorticosteroids include hoarseness and “thrush,” a mucosal infection from yeast (oropharyngeal candidiasis).[28]
  • Pill or Intravenous Steroids.  Whether inhaled or taken some other way, steroids can be very effective in the short term but have many serious side effects over the long term, including increased blood pressure, an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, weakened bones, and cataracts.[29]

In addition to controlling symptoms with medication, patients are encouraged to be vaccinated against pneumonia and the flu, both of which can worsen COPD symptoms.

Another treatment option is pulmonary rehabilitation, which can improve the health and quality of life of those who suffer from COPD. Rehab programs include exercise to maintain muscle strength, disease management training, nutritional counseling to prevent muscle wasting and maintain a healthy weight, and psychological counseling to deal with depression. Oxygen therapy is another option but is usually reserved for patients with severe COPD. It can improve quality of life by allowing patients to perform certain tasks or engage in physical activity that they otherwise couldn’t do. Oxygen therapy also helps to reduce symptoms, improve sleep, and increase overall survival in some patients.

In a small study in Japan, researchers found that acupuncture improved shortness of breath in COPD patients taking medications.[30] Patients were better able to tolerate exercise and experienced less shortness of breath during exercise, which is usually a debilitating problem for COPD sufferers. Acupuncture has previously been shown to improve shortness of breath in cancer patients. Although this alternative approach seems promising, larger studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture and determine if it’s a reasonable treatment option for COPD patients.

Although rare, surgery is a last resort for cases of severe COPD where medications, pulmonary rehabilitation, oxygen therapy, and alternative medicines don’t work. Surgery can range from removing parts of the diseased lung to a complete lung transplant.

Just as there are barriers to diagnosing COPD, there are barriers to treating it, too.  According to a study of knowledge and attitudes among primary care providers, only 15% believed COPD treatment was useful for improving symptoms. Among those with access to pulmonary rehabilitation, 3% believed it was useful and 16% were neutral about its benefits.

How quickly COPD progresses varies with each patient and therefore it is hard to predict how long someone with COPD will live. One study, however, showed that inflammation measured by testing urine, blood, sputum (spit), tissue samples, and even exhaled air may help predict death in COPD patients within the next three years.[31] In the 3-year ECLIPSE study, inflammation was associated with an increased risk of death from COPD.

What Does This Have To Do With Lung Cancer?

COPD is a lung disease that often co-exists with lung cancer and is estimated to affect 40-70% of lung cancer patients (depending on the diagnostic criteria used). Similarly, the Lung Health Study Research Group found that the most common cause of death among patients with airflow obstruction was lung cancer. [32,33] One study which looked at the prevalence of COPD in lung cancer patients, independent of age, sex, or smoking history, concluded that the prevalence of COPD in newly diagnosed lung cancer cases was six-times greater than in smokers without lung cancer: 50% of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients had COPD whereas only 8% of smokers without lung cancer had COPD. Lung cancer is much more likely in smokers with previously diagnosed COPD and poor lung function compared to smokers with normal or near normal lung function. It is estimated that 20% of all long-term smokers will eventually develop COPD over the course of a lifetime. The results suggest that impaired lung function may be more important than age or even smoking history as a predictor of lung cancer.

The findings of Victor Kiri and colleagues at PAREXEL International (a pharmaceutical clinical research firm) suggest that while lung cancer survival in general is very low, survival is even lower among patients with a previous diagnosis of COPD.[34] In the study, 26% of lung cancer patients without COPD were still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared to just 15% of lung cancer patients with COPD. A 2005 meta-analysis, which is a combined analysis of several different but comparable studies, concluded that even a small reduction in airflow significantly predicted lung cancer.[35] Another study demonstrated that just a 10% reduction in lung function (as measured by a spirometer using forced expiratory volume in 1 second or FEV1%) was associated with an almost 3-times greater lung cancer risk.[36]

The link between emphysema and lung cancer has been illustrated in several studies. Lifelong non-smokers with a history of emphysema were more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer and died earlier than other lifelong non-smokers.[37] In another study, current and former smokers whose CT scans showed emphysema were more likely to develop lung cancer than current and former smokers whose CT scans showed no evidence of emphysema. This was true regardless of whether spirometry testing indicated airflow obstruction among the smokers, which is also a predictor of lung cancer.[38] Lung cancer occurred most frequently in patients with both airflow obstruction and emphysema—regardless of how much tobacco exposure they had. On the other hand, the more severe the case of emphysema a patient had (severity increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day), the greater the risk of lung cancer.

How are COPD and Lung Cancer Linked?

Genetic link

The above findings strongly suggest that COPD may be an important, independent risk factor for lung cancer. Some researchers believe that COPD and lung cancer have common origins in inflammation and also share some of the same genetic predispositions and environmental risk factors, with exposure to tobacco smoke being the primary risk factor.[39] It is well known that tobacco smoke can cause inflammation leading to chronic bronchitis and COPD. It is possible that chronic inflammation of the airways and lungs could result in repeat injury and repair of cells, uncontrolled cell growth, and eventually the development of lung cancer.[40] Chronic inflammation among people with COPD may activate the proteins that help cancer grow.[41] At the same time, the proteins needed to repair DNA in some of the lung’s cells are deactivated when COPD is present. COPD may also reduce the expression of key genes, preventing them from being involved in the detoxification of cigarette smoke. This can make cigarette smoke even more toxic and lead to the spread of malignant tumors beyond the lungs to other parts of the body. No one understands exactly how or why this happens, but studies reveal that genetic or biological changes could be responsible.

Sex hormones

Female sex hormones affect lung cancer, COPD, and asthma, which are the three most common lung diseases in women. The role of female hormones may explain why women (smokers and non-smokers) are more likely to develop lung cancer and COPD than men (smokers and non-smokers) (see Lung Cancer is a Women’s Health Issue).

Some studies suggest that female sex hormones, such as estradiol, inflame a smoker’s airways which could lead to lung cancer. Estradiol is the type of estrogen found in pre-menopausal women who are not pregnant. Its levels are low during menstruation and high during ovulation, and it causes an increase of certain proteins in the lungs which make the lungs more susceptible to damage from cigarette smoke.[42] This could be the reason why women smokers are more likely to develop COPD than male smokers—even when they smoke fewer cigarettes and for fewer years (called “pack-years” of smoking). Other studies suggest that estrogen may speed up the metabolism of cigarette smoke, which would increase cellular stress and damage in the lungs and ultimately lead to a higher chance of getting lung disease and COPD for women smokers.[43]

In addition to estrogen produced by the body, estrogen taken as hormone therapy also affects lung function. Research suggests that estrogen may help certain lung cancer cells spread throughout the lungs. A 2009 study based on the Women’s Health Initiative showed that post-menopausal women who took estrogen and progesterone combined hormone therapy had an increased risk of dying from lung cancer, regardless of whether or not they were smokers (although smokers had a higher risk of death than non-smokers).[44] A study published in 2010 showed that post-menopausal women who took estrogen hormone therapy for more than 10 years had a higher risk of developing lung cancer than women who didn’t take estrogen.[45] The use of hormone treatment after menopause does not appear to independently increase the risk of COPD, however.[46]

In terms of asthma, boys are more likely to be diagnosed with asthma than girls until the age of 15; after that, more women than men are diagnosed with asthma until women’s hormones decrease during the early stages of menopause. About a third of women with asthma find that symptoms worsen (and peak flow declines) in the period immediately before their menstrual cycle, presumably due to sudden changes in hormone levels.[47] Some studies suggest that a drop in estrogen levels is the problem while other studies indicate an increased risk of developing asthma when postmenopausal women take hormone therapy, which contains estrogen.[48] Despite the confusion, one thing is clear: dramatic changes in hormone levels trigger asthma and asthma symptoms in women, and asthma increases the risk for developing COPD.

Could COPD Patients be the Best Candidates for Lung Cancer Screening?

The relationship between smoking, airflow obstruction, and lung cancer is well recognized. Diseases characterized by airflow obstruction, like COPD, are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and screening smokers for COPD as a risk factor for lung cancer could be worthwhile.

While low-dose CT screening for lung cancer has gained support in recent years, its value is still being debated (see Lung Cancer: Who is at Risk and Can They be Screened?). Most experts agree that current and former smokers are at the highest risk for lung cancer, yet not everyone agrees that they should all be screened. Smokers who have COPD could be the best candidates for lung cancer screening because they are most likely to benefit from it. Prioritizing high-risk smokers could also increase the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of CT screening. Since emphysema is usually detected with low-dose CT, it would be efficient and cost-effective to screen smokers and former heavy smokers for both emphysema and lung cancer at the same time.

The combined use of spirometry to diagnose COPD and CT to diagnose emphysema could help identify those at greatest risk for lung cancer and who would benefit the most from lung cancer screening. A diagnosis of COPD could alert patients to their elevated risk of lung cancer, just as high blood pressure does for the risk of stroke.

You Think you Might be at Risk for COPD and/or Lung Cancer. Now What?

  1. If you are currently smoking, stop or at least start cutting back. 1-800-QUITNOW and Smokefree.gov are free resources you can use to help you quit. Women have a harder time quitting than men and it takes years to reverse the damage of cigarette smoke. Even then some lung damage cannot be undone. However, women who do quit recover faster from the effects of cigarette smoke than men.
  2. If you have risk factors for COPD or lung cancer, discuss the risks and benefits of screening with spirometry or low-dose CT with your doctor. If you are experiencing any symptoms associated with COPD and/or lung cancer, see your doctor immediately.
  3. If you are diagnosed with COPD, lung cancer or both, consider participating in clinical trials for new treatments and therapies.
  4. Advocate for additional federal funding for research to investigate the link between COPD and lung cancer and discover new treatments for both diseases.

Related Content:
Screening for lung cancer: do risks outweigh benefits?
Lung cancer: who is at risk and can they be screened?
Lung cancer and African Americans

References:

  1. Young RP, Hopkins RJ, Christmas T, Black PN, Metcalf P, Gamble GD. COPD prevalence is increased in lung cancer, independent of age, sex and smoking history. Eur Respir J. 2009; 34(2):380-6.
  2. Yang P, Sun Z, Krowka MJ, Aubry MC, Bamlet WR, et al. (2008) Alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency carriers, tobacco smoke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 168: 1097–1103.
  3. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. What is COPD? National Institutes of Health. Available from: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/copd/
  4. Fromer L. Diagnosing and treating COPD: understanding the challenges and finding solutions. Int J Gen Med. 2011;4:729–739.
  5. Lamprecht B, McBurnie MAM, Vollmer WMM, Gudmundsson GMF, Welte T, Nizankowska-Mogilnicka EMF, et al. COPD in never smokers: Results from the population-based burden of obstructive lung disease study. Chest. 2011;139(4):752–63.
  6. Han M, Postma D, Mannino DM, Giardino ND, Buist S, Curtis JL, Martinez FJ. ; Gender and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Why it matters. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007; 176:1179-1184.
  7. Belani CP, Marts S, Schiller J, Socinski MA. Women and lung cancer: epidemiology, tumor biology, and emerging trends in clinical research. Lung Cancer. 2007; 55(1):15-23.
  8. Lin K, Watkins B, Johnson T, Rodriguez JA, Barton MB. Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using spirometry: summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148:535-543.
  9. Vestbo J. Chronic cough and phlegm in young adults: should we worry? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007; 175:2-3.
  10. Johannessen A,Bakke PS, Hardie JA, Eagan TM. Association of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in childhood with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory symptoms in adults. Respirology. 2012; 17(3):499-505.
  11. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. What Is Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency? National Institutes of Health. Available from: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/aat/
  12. Akinbami LJ, Liu X. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Among Adults Aged 18 and Over in the United States, 1998-2009. NCHS Data Brief, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011;63.
  13. Van den Berge M, Heijink HI, Van Oosterhout AJ, Postma DS. The role of female sex hormones in the development and severity of allergic and non-allergic asthma. Clin Exp Allergy. 2009; 39:1477-81.
  14. Celli BR. Update on the management of COPD. Chest. 2008;133:1451-62.
  15. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2011. Available at: http://www.goldcopd.org/.
  16. Fromer L, Cooper CB. A Review of the GOLD Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with COPD. Int J Clin Pract CME. 2008;62(8):1219-1236.
  17. Yawn B, Wollan P. Knowledge and attitudes of family physicians coming to COPD continuing medical education. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2008;3(2):311–317.
  18. Tsagaraki V, Markantonis SL, Amfilochiou A. Pharmacotherapeutic management of COPD patients in Greece – adherence to international guidelines. J Clin Pharm Ther 2006; 31: 369–74.
  19. GOLD Spirometry Guide. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Available at: http://www.goldcopd.org/uploads/users/files/GOLD_Spirometry_2010.pdf.
  20. Güder G, Brenner S, Angermann CE, Ertl G, Held M, Sachs AP et al. GOLD or lower limit of normal definition? A comparison with expert-based diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a prospective cohort-study. Respir Res. 2012;13(13):1-9.
  21. Jordan RE, Miller MR, Lam KB, Cheng KK, Marsh J, Adab P. Sex, susceptibility to smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the effect of different diagnostic criteria. Analysis of the Health Survey for England. Thorax. 2012; 67(7):600-5.
  22. Ferguson GT, Enright PL, Buist AS, Higgins MW. Office spirometry for lung health assessment in adults: a consensus statement for the National Lung Health Education Program. Chest. 2000; 117:1146–61.
  23. Enright P. Does screening for COPD by primary care physicians have the potential to cause more harm than good? Chest. 2006; 129:833-5.]  In 2008, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force followed suit and recommended against screening healthy adults without any respiratory symptoms for COPD using spirometry, stating that it had no overall benefit.[end U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using spirometry: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148:529-534.
  24. Lin K, Watkins B, Johnson T, Rodriguez JA, Barton MB. Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Spirometry: Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 535-543.
  25. Nelson SB, LaVange LM, Nie Y, Walsh JW, Enright PL, Martinez FJ, Mannino DM, Thomashow BM. . Questionnaires and pocket spirometers provide an alternative approach for COPD screening in the general population. Chest. 2011; 142(2):358-66.
  26. Raghavan N, Lam YM, Webb KA, Guenette JA, Amornputtisathaporn N, Raghavan R et al.. Components of the COPD assessment test (CAT) associated with a diagnosis of COPD in a random population sample. COPD. 2012; 9(2):175-83.
  27. Chong J, Karner C, Poole P. Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;9:CD009157.
  28. Yang IA, Clark MS, Sim EH, Fong KM. Inhaled corticosteroids for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012, 7:CD00291.
  29. Walters JA, Walters EH, Wood-Baker R. Oral corticosteroids for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD005374.
  30. Suzuki M, Muro S, Ando Y, Omori T, Shiota T, Endo K et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acupuncture in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): the COPD-acupuncture trial (CAT). Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(11):878-86.
  31. Celli BR, Locantore N, Yates J, Tal-Singer R, Miller BE, Bakke P et al.. Inflammatory biomarkers improve clinical prediction of mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185(10):1065-72.
  32. Anthonisen NR, Skeans MA, Wise RA, Manfreda J, Kanner RE, Connett JE; Lung Health Study Research Group. The effects of a smoking cessation intervention on 14.5-year mortality: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142:233–239.
  33. Lung Health Study Research Group. Effect of inhaled triamcinolone on the decline in pulmonary function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343:1902–1909.
  34. Kiri V, Soriano J, Visick G, Fabbri L. Recent trends in lung cancer and its association with COPD: an analysis using the UK GP Research Database. Prim Care Respir J. 2010; 19(1):57-61.
  35. Wasswa-Kintu S, Gan WQ, Man SFP, Pare PD, Sin DD. Relationship between reduced forced expiratory volume in one second and the risk of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2005;60:570–575.
  36. Calabro E, Randi G, La Vecchia C, Sverzellati N, Marchiano A, Villani M et al. Lung function predicts lung cancer risk in smokers: a tool for targeting screening programmes. Eur Respir J. 2010; 35(6):146-151.
  37. Turner MC,Chen Y, Krewski D, Calle EE, Thun MJ. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with lung cancer mortality in a prospective study of never smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007; 176(3):285-290.
  38. Wilson DO, Weissfeld JL, Balkan A, Schragin JG, Fuhrman CR, Fisher SN et al. Association of radiographic emphysema and airflow obstruction with lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008; 178(7): 738-744.
  39. Barnes PJ. New concepts in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annu Rev Med. 2003; 54:113–129.
  40. Pages V, Fuchs RPP. How DNA lesions are turned into mutations within cells? Oncogene. 2002; 21:8957–8966.
  41. Barnes PJ, Adcock IM. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer: a lethal association. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011; 184(8):866-867.
  42. Tam A, Morrish D, Wadsworth S, Dorscheid D, Man SFP, Sin DD. The role of female hormones on lung function in chronic lung diseases. BMC Women’s Health. 2011; 11:24.
  43. Sin DD, Cohen SBZ, Day A, Coxson H, Pare PD. Understanding the Biological Differences in Susceptibility to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease between Men and Women. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007; 4(8): 671-674.
  44. Chlebowski RT, et al.  Oestrogen plus progestin and lung cancer in postmenopausal women (Women’s Health Initiative trial): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009; 374(9697):1243-1251.
  45. Slatore CG, et al. Lung cancer and hormone replacement therapy: association in the vitamins and lifestyle study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1540-1546.
  46. Barr GR, Wentowski CC, Grodstein F, Somers SC, Stampfer MJ, Schwartz J et al. Prospective study of postmenopausal hormone use and newly diagnosed asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164(4):379-386
  47. Shames RS, Heilbron DC, Janson SL, Kishiyama JL, Au DS, Adelman DC. Clinical differences among women with and without self-reported perimenstrual asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998; 81:65–72.
  48. Skobeloff EM, Spivey WH, Silverman R, Eskin BA, Harchelroad F, Alessi TV. The effect of the menstrual cycle on asthma presentations in the emergency department. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(16):1837-1840

Statement by Dr. Diana Zuckerman, Capitol Hill Press Conference

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, November 14, 2012

The FDA law is supposed to make sure that all medical products sold in the U.S. are safe and effective.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

There are several giant loopholes in the law, including loopholes for compounding pharmacies, as well as companies that call themselves compounding pharmacies but aren’t.  That loophole is enormous, and that’s why hundreds of people are now sick with fungal meningitis and so many have died.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, because thousands of people got medications that are not proven safe and not proven effective.   And I’m not just talking about the injections that harmed Jerry, which we heard about today.  There have been many other examples of unsafe medical drugs sold through compounding pharmacies, including cancer drugs that were either weaker or stronger than they should have been.

There’s enough blame to go around, but I don’t want to play the blame game today.  Obviously, a major part of the blame is on the compounding pharmacies that didn’t care enough about patients to make sure the products they were making were safe.  This includes the specific pharmacies in Massachusetts that have been identified, but also includes many other compounding pharmacies.  We also have to wonder about the state and FDA inspectors and officials who knew that there were serious, life-threatening problems but didn’t do enough to fix them, and the doctors who ordered products from compounding pharmacies without considering safety issues.

The innocent victims are the patients who trusted their doctors and the FDA to make sure their medications are safe.  The costs to them are enormous, but the human costs and the financial costs.

This VALID Compounding Act is designed to close the loopholes that are so harmful to patients.  It is a well thought out, comprehensive, and balanced bill, and I congratulate Rep. Markey and his staff on the bill and on their excellent report.

The FDA will do a much better job of enforcement if the law is improved.  The FDA’s hands have been tied — they haven’t been able to get the information they needed to fully investigate.  FDA’s resources are very limited, so the agency tends to focus on the slam dunks, not the efforts that are less likely to be successful.

This law will save lives.  It will save a lot of lives if it isn’t watered down by those who care more about protecting companies than protecting people.  We heard a lot of opposition to safety regulations this past year in the House of Representatives, based on claims that safety regulations kill jobs.  Let’s remember that having more inspectors and requiring research evidence of safety will create jobs.  Personally, I’d rather make new jobs for inspectors and researchers, than jobs for people making unsafe medical products.  This law will make new jobs and it will save lives and healthcare dollars, a great combination.

In closing, I want to point out that the history of the FDA is a history of disasters followed by improvements in the law.  The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act passed in 1938 after 107 people died, mostly women and children, from taking an elixir made with an antifreeze that was added to improve the color.  That law was greatly strengthened in 1962, after the Thalidomide tragedy caused thousands of babies to be born without terribly deformed arms, legs, fingers, and toes, and in some cases no arms or legs. And, medical devices – even implanted ones – were not regulated until 1976, after many women died or became infertile from the Dalkon Shield IUD.

This is the latest tragedy, and it is an important opportunity to prevent similar tragedies in the future.  That’s why it is essential to act now.  It is not a partisan issue, and we look forward to working with Congress to act quickly.

Letter to Representative Markey in Support of Legislation that would give FDA Authority to Oversee Compounding Pharmacies, October 31, 2012

October 31, 2012

The Honorable Edward J. Markey
Energy and Commerce Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
2108 Rayburn
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Markey,

As members of the Patient, Consumer, and Public Health Coalition, we thank you for your commitment to the health of patients and consumers by introducing the Verifying Authority and Legality in Drug (VALID) Compounding Act of 2012. This bill would strengthen FDA oversight of compounding pharmacies in several essential ways, and is clearly needed to prevent tragedies such as the contaminated steroid injections that have already resulted in 356 cases of fungal meningitis and 28 deaths.

The current laws and regulations regarding compounding pharmacies have resulted in giant loopholes that allow medical products that are neither safe nor effective to be sold throughout the country, putting patients’ lives at risk. We are very grateful to you for your leadership on this very important, life-saving bill.

The VALID Act would protect the activities of traditional small compounding pharmacies while ensuring that compounding pharmacies that are essentially operating as drug manufacturers are regulated by the FDA the same way as other drug manufacturers. It would require pharmacies that engage in interstate commerce to register with the FDA and comply with minimum safety standards. The bill would require compounding pharmacies to report deaths and other serious adverse events to the FDA in a timely manner, so that other patients would not be harmed. It would authorize the FDA to inspect pharmacy facilities, which is absolutely essential. It would also require a warning to patients that compounded drugs have not been approved safe and effective by the FDA.

We look forward to working with you on the VALID Act, and share your desire to make sure that waivers are available when the public health is at stake, but are not used to undermine the integrity of the legislation.

The scandal around the lack of oversight of compounding pharmacies has alarmed lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. We will make every effort to secure bipartisan support for this bill.

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
Jacobs Institute for Women’s Health
National Consumers League
National Research Center for Women & Families
Our Bodies Ourselves
Union of Concerned Scientists

The original letter can be found here.

Press release from Representative Markey.

November 1, 2012
Washington, D.C.

VALID Compounding Act will give FDA authority it needs to ensure the safety of the compounding pharmacy sector nationwide

Today, Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) announced legislation he plans to introduce tomorrow that will strengthen federal regulations for compounding pharmacies. The New England Compounding Center (NECC), a compounding pharmacy located in Rep. Markey’s Congressional District, has been found to be the source of contaminated injectable steroids that have led to 28 deaths and 377 illnesses in 19 states. The Verifying Authority and Legality in Drug (VALID) Compounding Act will give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clear, new authority to oversee compounding pharmacy practices throughout the country.

“Compounding pharmacies have been governed by fragmented regulations for too long, leading to the worst public health disaster in recent memory,” said Rep. Markey, senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “The VALID Compounding Act ends this regulatory black hole by giving the FDA new, clear authority to protect patients and oversee these companies. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on a bipartisan basis to move this legislation forward.”

A copy of the VALID Compounding Act can be found HERE. A one-page description of the legislation can be found HERE.

The VALID Compounding Act will:

  • Preserve state regulatory authority for traditional small compounding pharmacy activities;
  • Ensure that compounding pharmacies that are operating as drug manufacturers are regulated by the FDA as drug manufacturers;
  • Allow compounding pharmacies with a legitimate reason to compound drugs before the receipt of a valid prescription to request a waiver to enable them to do so;
  • Allow the FDA to waive the requirement to compound drugs solely for individual patients with valid prescriptions in the event of a drug shortage or to protect public health;
  • Allow the FDA to waive the requirement to compound drugs only if they are not copies of commercially-available drugs if doing so is necessary to protect public health or well- being; and
  • Increases transparency to the public by mandating that compounded drugs be labeled to ensure that recipients know that the drugs have not been tested for safety or effectiveness, publishing a “Do Not Compound” list of unsafe or ineffective drugs, and reporting of bad reactions to compounded drugs or any drug that poses a safety risk.

“This bill will save lives by ensuring that compounding pharmacies play by the rules that are essential to protect patients,” said Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund. “This month’s tragic meningitis outbreak from contaminated steroid injections was absolutely preventable. We call on Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to pass Congressman Markey’s legislation, which is necessary to protect our families from these predictable, preventable tragedies.”

The legislation has been endorsed by Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, Jacobs Institute for Women’s Health, National Consumers League, National Research Center for Women & Families, Our Bodies Ourselves, and Union of Concerned Scientists. A copy of the endorsement letter can be found HERE.

Earlier this week, Rep. Markey released the report “Compounding Pharmacies, Compounding Risk”, which revealed that even before the current outbreak, problems at compounding pharmacies led to at least 23 deaths and 86 illnesses in 34 states, and that state regulatory bodies typically focus on more non-safety related traditional pharmacy licensing activities. A timeline of Rep. Markey’s work on compounding pharmacies can be found HERE.