Prevalence and Characteristics of Adrenal Tumors in an Unselected Screening Population: A Cross-Sectional Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 10

Background: With the widespread use of advanced imaging technology, adrenal tumors are increasingly being identified. Objective: To investigate the prevalence and characteristics of adrenal tumors in an unselected screening population in China. Design: Cross-sectional study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04682938) Setting: A health examination center in China. Patients: Adults having an annual checkup were invited to be screened for adrenal tumors by adrenal computed tomography. Measurements: The participants with adrenal tumors had further evaluation for malignancy risk and adrenal function. Results: A total of 25 356 participants were screened, 351 of whom were found to have adrenal tumors, for a prevalence of 1.4%. The prevalence increased with age, from 0.2% in participants aged 18 to 25 years to 3.2% in those older than 65 years. Among 351 participants with adrenal tumors, 337 were diagnosed with an adrenocortical adenoma, 14 with another benign nodule, and none with a malignant mass. In 212 participants with an adenoma who completed endocrine testing, 69.3% were diagnosed with a nonfunctioning adenoma, 18.9% with cortisol autonomy, 11.8% with primary aldosteronism, and none with pheochromocytoma. Proportions of nonfunctioning adenomas were similarly high in various age groups (72.2%, 67.8%, and 72.2% in those aged <46, 46 to 65, and ≥66 years, respectively). Limitation: Only 212 of 337 participants with an adrenocortical adenoma had endocrine testing. Conclusion: The prevalence of adrenal tumors in the general adult screening population is 1.4%, and most of these tumors are nonfunctioning regardless of patient age. Cortisol and aldosterone secretion are the main causes of functional adenomas. Primary Funding Source: National Key Research and Development Program of China and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 12

Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications. Objective: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia). Design: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255) Setting: The ATLAS trial. Patients: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5). Measurements: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (−4.4%; 95% CI, −6.9 to −1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035). Limitation: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing. Conclusion: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks. Primary Funding Source: Boston Scientific.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 9

Background: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objective: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978) Setting: Multinational, multicenter trial. Participants: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Intervention: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. Measurements: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. Results: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). Limitation: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. Conclusion: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 4

Background: Treatment guidelines and U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 changed frequently as different SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged. Objective: To evaluate whether early outpatient treatment with mAbs, overall and by mAb product, presumed SARS-CoV-2 variant, and immunocompromised status, is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days. Design: Hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial from observational data comparing mAb-treated patients with a propensity score–matched, nontreated control group. Setting: Large U.S. health care system. Participants: High-risk outpatients eligible for mAb treatment under any EUA with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result from 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Intervention: Single-dose intravenous mAb treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab–etesevimab, sotrovimab, bebtelovimab, or intravenous or subcutaneous casirivimab–imdevimab administered within 2 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Measurements: The primary outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days among treated patients versus a nontreated control group (no treatment or treatment ≥3 days after SARS-CoV-2 test date). Results: The risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days was 4.6% in 2571 treated patients and 7.6% in 5135 nontreated control patients (risk ratio [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74]). In sensitivity analyses, the corresponding RRs for 1- and 3-day treatment grace periods were 0.59 and 0.49, respectively. In subgroup analyses, those receiving mAbs when the Alpha and Delta variants were presumed to be predominant had estimated RRs of 0.55 and 0.53, respectively, compared with 0.71 for the Omicron variant period. Relative risk estimates for individual mAb products all suggested lower risk for hospitalization or death. Among immunocompromised patients, the RR was 0.45 (CI, 0.28 to 0.71). Limitations: Observational study design, SARS-CoV-2 variant presumed by date rather than genotyping, no data on symptom severity, and partial data on vaccination status. Conclusion: Early mAb treatment among outpatients with COVID-19 is associated with lower risk for hospitalization or death for various mAb products and SARS-CoV-2 variants. Primary Funding Source: None.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Programs: An Observational Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 3

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) represent the standard of care for population-based interventions. Their benefit depends on the identification of neoplasia at colonoscopy after FIT positivity. Colonoscopy quality measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR) may affect screening program effectiveness. Objective: To examine the association between ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) risk in a FIT-based screening program. Design: Retrospective population-based cohort study. Setting: Fecal immunochemical test–based CRC screening program between 2003 and 2021 in northeastern Italy. Patients: All patients with a positive FIT result who had a colonoscopy were included. Measurements: The regional cancer registry supplied information on any PCCRC diagnosed between 6 months and 10 years after colonoscopy. Endoscopists' ADR was categorized into 5 groups (20% to 39.9%, 40% to 44.9%, 45% to 49.9%, 50% to 54.9%, and 55% to 70%). To examine the association of ADR with PCCRC incidence risk, Cox regression models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Results: Of the 110 109 initial colonoscopies, 49 626 colonoscopies done by 113 endoscopists between 2012 and 2017 were included. After 328 778 person-years follow-up, 277 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed. Mean ADR was 48.3% (range, 23% and 70%). Incidence rates of PCCRC from lowest to highest ADR group were 13.13, 10.61, 7.60, 6.01, and 5.78 per 10 000 person-years. There was a significant inverse association between ADR and PCCRC incidence risk, with a 2.35-fold risk increase (95% CI, 1.63 to 3.38) in the lowest group compared with the highest. The adjusted HR for PCCRC associated with 1% increase in ADR was 0.96 (CI, 0.95 to 0.98). Limitation: Adenoma detection rate is partly determined by FIT positivity cutoff; exact values may vary in different settings. Conclusion: In a FIT-based screening program, ADR is inversely associated with PCCRC incidence risk, mandating appropriate colonoscopy quality monitoring in this setting. Increasing endoscopists' ADR may significantly reduce PCCRC risk. Primary Funding Source: None.

Would You Recommend a Statin to This Patient for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 6

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Hypercholesterolemia is a principal modifiable risk factor for the primary prevention of CVD. In addition to lifestyle modification, statins are an important tool to reduce risk for CVD in selected patients. A useful strategy to identify candidates for statins is to estimate the 10-year risk for CVD through the use of a validated risk calculator. Commonly used calculators include the Framingham risk score and the pooled cohort equation. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that statins reduce the risk for CVD in patients without known CVD. Two recent guidelines have proposed an approach to the use of statins in primary prevention of CVD. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines form the basis for this discussion. The guidelines differ on the use of advanced testing to modify the 10-year CVD risk estimate and on the need for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets to establish the efficacy of statins. Advanced testing with coronary artery calcium measurement may be helpful for patients who are potentially eligible for statin therapy but who are uncertain if they wish to take a statin. In this paper, 2 experts, a preventive cardiologist and a general internist, discuss their approach to the use of statins for primary prevention of CVD and how they would apply the guidelines to an individual patient.

Benefits and Risks Associated With Continuation of Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor After 24 Weeks of Pregnancy in Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Nationwide Emulation Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 10

Background: Continuation of biologics for inflammatory disorders during pregnancy is still a difficult decision. Many women with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) stop anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment after 24 weeks. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of anti-TNF continuation after 24 weeks of pregnancy for mothers with IBD and their offspring. Design: Target trial emulation between 2010 and 2020. Setting: Nationwide population-based study using the Système National des Données de Santé. Patients: All pregnancies with birth exposed to anti-TNF between conception and 24 weeks of pregnancy in women with IBD. Intervention: Continuation of anti-TNF after 24 weeks of pregnancy. Measurements: Occurrence of maternal IBD relapse up to 6 months after pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and serious infections in the offspring during the first 5 years of life was compared according to anti-TNF continuation after 24 weeks of pregnancy using inverse probability–weighted marginal models. Results: A total of 5293 pregnancies were included; among them, anti-TNF treatment was discontinued before 24 weeks for 2890 and continued beyond 24 weeks for 2403. Continuation of anti-TNF was associated with decreased frequencies of maternal IBD relapse (35.8% vs. 39.0%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]) and prematurity (7.6% vs. 8.9%; aRR, 0.82 [CI, 0.68 to 0.99]). No difference according to anti-TNF continuation was found regarding stillbirths (0.4% vs. 0.2%; aRR, 2.16 [CI, 0.64 to 7.81]), small weight for gestational age births (13.1% vs. 12.9%; aRR, 1.01 [CI, 0.88 to 1.17]), and serious infections in the offspring (54.2 vs. 50.2 per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [CI, 0.94 to 1.25]). Limitation: Algorithms rather than clinical data were used to identify patients with IBD, pregnancies, and serious infections. Conclusion: Continuation of anti-TNF after 24 weeks of pregnancy appears beneficial regarding IBD activity and prematurity, while not affecting neonatal outcomes and serious infections in the offspring. Primary Funding Source: None.

Periconception Red Blood Cell Folate and Offspring Congenital Heart Disease: Nested Case–Control and Mendelian Randomization Studies: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 9

Background: Periconception folic acid supplementation has been suggested to protect against congenital heart disease (CHD), but the association between maternal red blood cell (RBC) folate, the gold-standard biomarker of folate exposure, and subsequent offspring CHD risk is lacking. Objective: To quantify the association between periconception maternal RBC folate and offspring CHD risk. Design: Prospective, nested, case–control study and 1-sample Mendelian randomization. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02737644) Setting: 29 maternity institutions in 12 districts of Greater Shanghai, China. Participants: All 197 mothers of offspring with CHD and 788 individually matched mothers of unaffected offspring from the SPCC (Shanghai Preconception Cohort). Measurements: Maternal RBC folate was measured before or at early pregnancy. Odds ratios [ORs] were estimated using conditional logistic regression after adjustment for covariates. Mendelian randomization was done using the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T as the genetic instrument. Results: Case patients had lower median maternal RBC folate concentrations than control participants (714 nmol/L [interquartile range, 482 to 1008 nmol/L] vs. 788 nmol/L [557 to 1094 nmol/L]). Maternal RBC folate concentrations were inversely associated with offspring CHD (adjusted OR per 100 nmol/L, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89 to 0.99]). The adjusted OR for mothers with periconception RBC folate of 906 nmol/L or more (vs. <906 nmol/L) was 0.61 (CI, 0.40 to 0.93). Mendelian randomization showed that each 100-nmol increase in maternal RBC folate concentrations was significantly associated with reduced offspring CHD risk (OR, 0.75 [CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Limitation: Potential confounding due to unmeasured covariates in the nested case–control study. Conclusion: Higher maternal RBC folate is associated with reduced offspring CHD risk. For primary CHD prevention, higher target RBC folate levels than currently recommended for neural tube defect prevention may be needed and warrant further study. Primary Funding Source: National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences.

Increasing Motivation for Lifestyle Change Is Not Enough to Treat Obesity

How the Gender Wage Gap for Primary Care Physicians Differs by Compensation Approach: A Microsimulation Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 8

Background: The physician gender wage gap may be due, in part, to productivity-based compensation models that undervalue female practice patterns. Objective: To determine how primary care physician (PCP) compensation by gender differs when applying existing productivity-based and alternative compensation models. Design: Microsimulation. Setting: 2016 to 2019 national clinical registry of 1222 primary care practices. Participants: Male and female PCPs matched on specialty, years since medical school graduation, practice site, and sessions worked. Measurements: Net annual, full-time-equivalent compensation for male versus female PCPs, under productivity-based fee-for-service, panel size–based capitation without or with risk adjustment, and hybrid payment models. Microsimulation inputs included patient and visit characteristics and overhead expenses. Results: Among 1435 matched male (n = 881) and female (n = 554) PCPs, female PCP panels included patients who were, on average, younger, had lower diagnosis-based risk scores, were more often female, and were more often uninsured or insured by Medicaid rather than by Medicare. Under productivity-based payment, female PCPs earned a median of $58 829 (interquartile range [IQR], $39 553 to $120 353; 21%) less than male PCPs. This gap was similar under capitation ($58 723 [IQR, $42 141 to $140 192]). It was larger under capitation risk-adjusted for age alone ($74 695 [IQR, $42 884 to $152 423]), for diagnosis-based scores alone ($114 792 [IQR, $49 080 to $215 326] and $89 974 [IQR, $26 175 to $173 760]), and for age-, sex-, and diagnosis-based scores ($83 438 [IQR, $28 927 to $129 414] and $66 195 [IQR, $11 899 to $96 566]). The gap was smaller and nonsignificant under capitation risk-adjusted for age and sex ($36 631 [IQR, $12 743 to $73 898]). Limitation: Panel attribution based on office visits. Conclusion: The gender wage gap varied by compensation model, with capitation risk-adjusted for patient age and sex resulting in a smaller gap. Future models might better align with primary care effort and outcomes. Primary Funding Source: None.