Clinical Psychiatry News

Adding simvastatin to standard therapy offers no benefit over placebo for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), new research shows.

The randomized clinical trial findings contradict earlier, smaller studies in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) that suggested statins may reduce symptoms.

“Given the promising results from preliminary trials of statins in MDD, I was surprised that simvastatin did not separate from placebo in our trial,” lead author M. Ishrat Husain, MBBS, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and scientific head of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“I believe that our findings suggest that statins are not effective augmentation strategies in treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Husain said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Disappointing results

The double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in five centers in Pakistan and included 150 patients with major depressive episode whose symptoms did not improve after treatment with at least two antidepressants.

In addition to their prescribed antidepressants, participants received 20 mg/day of simvastatin (n = 77) or placebo (n = 73).

At 12 weeks, both groups reported improvements in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, but there was no significant difference between groups. The estimated mean difference for simvastatin vs. placebo was −0.61 (P = .7).

Researchers found similar results when they compared scores from the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale.

“Much like several other studies in mood disorders, our study results were impacted by a large placebo response,” Dr. Husain said.

The lack of inclusion of any participants under the age of 18 and the single-country cohort were limitations of the trial. Although it is possible that could have affected the outcome, Dr. Husain said it isn’t likely.

It is also unlikely that a different statin would yield different results, he added.

“Simvastatin was selected as it is believed to be most brain penetrant of the statins given its lipophilicity,” Dr. Husain said. “Clinical trials of other statins in major depressive disorder in other settings and populations have also been congruent with our results.”

The study was funded by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr. Husain reports having received grants from Compass Pathways, holds stock options in Mindset, and previously served on the Board of Trustees of the Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

Adding simvastatin to standard therapy offers no benefit over placebo for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), new research shows.

The randomized clinical trial findings contradict earlier, smaller studies in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) that suggested statins may reduce symptoms.

“Given the promising results from preliminary trials of statins in MDD, I was surprised that simvastatin did not separate from placebo in our trial,” lead author M. Ishrat Husain, MBBS, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and scientific head of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“I believe that our findings suggest that statins are not effective augmentation strategies in treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Husain said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Disappointing results

The double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in five centers in Pakistan and included 150 patients with major depressive episode whose symptoms did not improve after treatment with at least two antidepressants.

In addition to their prescribed antidepressants, participants received 20 mg/day of simvastatin (n = 77) or placebo (n = 73).

At 12 weeks, both groups reported improvements in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, but there was no significant difference between groups. The estimated mean difference for simvastatin vs. placebo was −0.61 (P = .7).

Researchers found similar results when they compared scores from the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale.

“Much like several other studies in mood disorders, our study results were impacted by a large placebo response,” Dr. Husain said.

The lack of inclusion of any participants under the age of 18 and the single-country cohort were limitations of the trial. Although it is possible that could have affected the outcome, Dr. Husain said it isn’t likely.

It is also unlikely that a different statin would yield different results, he added.

“Simvastatin was selected as it is believed to be most brain penetrant of the statins given its lipophilicity,” Dr. Husain said. “Clinical trials of other statins in major depressive disorder in other settings and populations have also been congruent with our results.”

The study was funded by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr. Husain reports having received grants from Compass Pathways, holds stock options in Mindset, and previously served on the Board of Trustees of the Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

Adding simvastatin to standard therapy offers no benefit over placebo for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), new research shows.

The randomized clinical trial findings contradict earlier, smaller studies in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) that suggested statins may reduce symptoms.

“Given the promising results from preliminary trials of statins in MDD, I was surprised that simvastatin did not separate from placebo in our trial,” lead author M. Ishrat Husain, MBBS, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and scientific head of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“I believe that our findings suggest that statins are not effective augmentation strategies in treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Husain said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Disappointing results

The double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in five centers in Pakistan and included 150 patients with major depressive episode whose symptoms did not improve after treatment with at least two antidepressants.

In addition to their prescribed antidepressants, participants received 20 mg/day of simvastatin (n = 77) or placebo (n = 73).

At 12 weeks, both groups reported improvements in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, but there was no significant difference between groups. The estimated mean difference for simvastatin vs. placebo was −0.61 (P = .7).

Researchers found similar results when they compared scores from the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale.

“Much like several other studies in mood disorders, our study results were impacted by a large placebo response,” Dr. Husain said.

The lack of inclusion of any participants under the age of 18 and the single-country cohort were limitations of the trial. Although it is possible that could have affected the outcome, Dr. Husain said it isn’t likely.

It is also unlikely that a different statin would yield different results, he added.

“Simvastatin was selected as it is believed to be most brain penetrant of the statins given its lipophilicity,” Dr. Husain said. “Clinical trials of other statins in major depressive disorder in other settings and populations have also been congruent with our results.”

The study was funded by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr. Husain reports having received grants from Compass Pathways, holds stock options in Mindset, and previously served on the Board of Trustees of the Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

Combining ketamine and psychotherapy is a promising approach for treating PTSD, new research suggests.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies investigating combined use of psychotherapy and ketamine for PTSD, results showed that all the studies showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptom scores.

Overall, the treatment was “highly effective, as seen by the significant improvements in symptoms on multiple measures,” Aaron E. Philipp-Muller, BScH, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

Furthermore, the study “demonstrates the potential feasibility of this treatment model and corroborates previous work,” the investigators write.

However, a limitation they note was that only 34 participants were included in the analysis.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Emerging treatment

Ketamine is an “emerging treatment for a number of psychopathologies, such as major depressive disorder and PTSD, with a higher response than other pharmacologic agents,” the researchers write.

It is hypothesized that ketamine rapidly facilitates long-term potentiation, “thereby allowing a patient to disengage from an established pattern of thought more readily,” they write.

However, ketamine has several drawbacks, including the fact that it brings only 1 week of relief for PTSD. Also, because it must be administered intravenously, it is “impractical for long-term weekly administration,” they note.

Pharmacologically enhanced psychotherapy is a potential way to prolong ketamine’s effects. Several prior studies have investigated this model using other psychedelic medications, with encouraging results.

The current investigators decided to review all literature to date on the subject of ketamine plus psychotherapy for the treatment of PTSD.

To be included, the study had to include patients diagnosed with PTSD, an intervention involving ketamine alongside any form of psychotherapy, and assessment of all patients before and after treatment using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) or the PTSD Checklist (PCL).

Four studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, two were of “moderate” quality and two were of “low” quality, based on the GRADE assessment. The studies encompassed a total of 34 patients with “diverse traumatic experiences” and included several types of ketamine administration protocols, including one used previously for treating depression and another used previously for chronic pain.

The psychotherapy modalities also differed between the studies. In two studies, patients received 12 sessions of trauma interventions using mindfulness-based extinction and reconsolidation therapy; in a third study, patients received 10 weekly sessions of prolonged exposure therapy; and in the fourth study, patients received five daily sessions of exposure therapy.

Across the studies, the psychotherapies were paired differently with ketamine administration, such as the number of ketamine administrations in conjunction with therapy.

Despite the differences in protocols, all the studies of ketamine plus psychotherapy showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of –7.26 (95% CI, –12.28 to –2.25; P = .005) for the CAPS and a pooled SMD of –5.17 (95% CI, –7.99 to –2.35; P < .001) for the PCL.

The researchers acknowledge that the sample size was very small “due to the novelty of this research area.” This prompted the inclusion of nonrandomized studies that “lowered the quality of the evidence,” they note.

Nevertheless, “these preliminary findings indicate the potential of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD,” the investigators write.
 

A promising avenue?

In a comment, Dan Iosifescu, MD, professor of psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, called the combination of ketamine and psychotherapy in PTSD “a very promising treatment avenue.”

Dr. Iosifescu, who was not involved with the research, noted that “several PTSD-focused psychotherapies are ultimately very effective but very hard to tolerate for participants.” For example, prolonged exposure therapy has dropout rates as high as 50%.

In addition, ketamine has rapid but not sustained effects in PTSD, he said.

“So in theory, a course of ketamine could help PTSD patients improve rapidly and tolerate the psychotherapy, which could provide sustained benefits,” he added.

However, Dr. Iosifescu cautioned that the data supporting this “is very sparse for now.”

He also noted that the meta-analysis included only “four tiny studies” and had only 34 total participants. In addition, several of the studies had no comparison group and the study designs were all different – “both with respect to the administration of ketamine and to the paired PTSD psychotherapy.”

For this reason, “any conclusions are only a very preliminary suggestion that this may be a fruitful avenue,” he said.

Dr. Iosifescu added that additional studies on this topic are ongoing. The largest one at the Veterans Administration will hopefully include 100 participants and “will provide more reliable evidence for this important topic,” he said.

The study was indirectly supported by the Internal Faculty Grant from the department of psychiatry, Queen’s University. Dr. Iosifescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining ketamine and psychotherapy is a promising approach for treating PTSD, new research suggests.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies investigating combined use of psychotherapy and ketamine for PTSD, results showed that all the studies showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptom scores.

Overall, the treatment was “highly effective, as seen by the significant improvements in symptoms on multiple measures,” Aaron E. Philipp-Muller, BScH, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

Furthermore, the study “demonstrates the potential feasibility of this treatment model and corroborates previous work,” the investigators write.

However, a limitation they note was that only 34 participants were included in the analysis.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Emerging treatment

Ketamine is an “emerging treatment for a number of psychopathologies, such as major depressive disorder and PTSD, with a higher response than other pharmacologic agents,” the researchers write.

It is hypothesized that ketamine rapidly facilitates long-term potentiation, “thereby allowing a patient to disengage from an established pattern of thought more readily,” they write.

However, ketamine has several drawbacks, including the fact that it brings only 1 week of relief for PTSD. Also, because it must be administered intravenously, it is “impractical for long-term weekly administration,” they note.

Pharmacologically enhanced psychotherapy is a potential way to prolong ketamine’s effects. Several prior studies have investigated this model using other psychedelic medications, with encouraging results.

The current investigators decided to review all literature to date on the subject of ketamine plus psychotherapy for the treatment of PTSD.

To be included, the study had to include patients diagnosed with PTSD, an intervention involving ketamine alongside any form of psychotherapy, and assessment of all patients before and after treatment using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) or the PTSD Checklist (PCL).

Four studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, two were of “moderate” quality and two were of “low” quality, based on the GRADE assessment. The studies encompassed a total of 34 patients with “diverse traumatic experiences” and included several types of ketamine administration protocols, including one used previously for treating depression and another used previously for chronic pain.

The psychotherapy modalities also differed between the studies. In two studies, patients received 12 sessions of trauma interventions using mindfulness-based extinction and reconsolidation therapy; in a third study, patients received 10 weekly sessions of prolonged exposure therapy; and in the fourth study, patients received five daily sessions of exposure therapy.

Across the studies, the psychotherapies were paired differently with ketamine administration, such as the number of ketamine administrations in conjunction with therapy.

Despite the differences in protocols, all the studies of ketamine plus psychotherapy showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of –7.26 (95% CI, –12.28 to –2.25; P = .005) for the CAPS and a pooled SMD of –5.17 (95% CI, –7.99 to –2.35; P < .001) for the PCL.

The researchers acknowledge that the sample size was very small “due to the novelty of this research area.” This prompted the inclusion of nonrandomized studies that “lowered the quality of the evidence,” they note.

Nevertheless, “these preliminary findings indicate the potential of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD,” the investigators write.
 

A promising avenue?

In a comment, Dan Iosifescu, MD, professor of psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, called the combination of ketamine and psychotherapy in PTSD “a very promising treatment avenue.”

Dr. Iosifescu, who was not involved with the research, noted that “several PTSD-focused psychotherapies are ultimately very effective but very hard to tolerate for participants.” For example, prolonged exposure therapy has dropout rates as high as 50%.

In addition, ketamine has rapid but not sustained effects in PTSD, he said.

“So in theory, a course of ketamine could help PTSD patients improve rapidly and tolerate the psychotherapy, which could provide sustained benefits,” he added.

However, Dr. Iosifescu cautioned that the data supporting this “is very sparse for now.”

He also noted that the meta-analysis included only “four tiny studies” and had only 34 total participants. In addition, several of the studies had no comparison group and the study designs were all different – “both with respect to the administration of ketamine and to the paired PTSD psychotherapy.”

For this reason, “any conclusions are only a very preliminary suggestion that this may be a fruitful avenue,” he said.

Dr. Iosifescu added that additional studies on this topic are ongoing. The largest one at the Veterans Administration will hopefully include 100 participants and “will provide more reliable evidence for this important topic,” he said.

The study was indirectly supported by the Internal Faculty Grant from the department of psychiatry, Queen’s University. Dr. Iosifescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining ketamine and psychotherapy is a promising approach for treating PTSD, new research suggests.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies investigating combined use of psychotherapy and ketamine for PTSD, results showed that all the studies showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptom scores.

Overall, the treatment was “highly effective, as seen by the significant improvements in symptoms on multiple measures,” Aaron E. Philipp-Muller, BScH, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

Furthermore, the study “demonstrates the potential feasibility of this treatment model and corroborates previous work,” the investigators write.

However, a limitation they note was that only 34 participants were included in the analysis.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Emerging treatment

Ketamine is an “emerging treatment for a number of psychopathologies, such as major depressive disorder and PTSD, with a higher response than other pharmacologic agents,” the researchers write.

It is hypothesized that ketamine rapidly facilitates long-term potentiation, “thereby allowing a patient to disengage from an established pattern of thought more readily,” they write.

However, ketamine has several drawbacks, including the fact that it brings only 1 week of relief for PTSD. Also, because it must be administered intravenously, it is “impractical for long-term weekly administration,” they note.

Pharmacologically enhanced psychotherapy is a potential way to prolong ketamine’s effects. Several prior studies have investigated this model using other psychedelic medications, with encouraging results.

The current investigators decided to review all literature to date on the subject of ketamine plus psychotherapy for the treatment of PTSD.

To be included, the study had to include patients diagnosed with PTSD, an intervention involving ketamine alongside any form of psychotherapy, and assessment of all patients before and after treatment using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) or the PTSD Checklist (PCL).

Four studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, two were of “moderate” quality and two were of “low” quality, based on the GRADE assessment. The studies encompassed a total of 34 patients with “diverse traumatic experiences” and included several types of ketamine administration protocols, including one used previously for treating depression and another used previously for chronic pain.

The psychotherapy modalities also differed between the studies. In two studies, patients received 12 sessions of trauma interventions using mindfulness-based extinction and reconsolidation therapy; in a third study, patients received 10 weekly sessions of prolonged exposure therapy; and in the fourth study, patients received five daily sessions of exposure therapy.

Across the studies, the psychotherapies were paired differently with ketamine administration, such as the number of ketamine administrations in conjunction with therapy.

Despite the differences in protocols, all the studies of ketamine plus psychotherapy showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of –7.26 (95% CI, –12.28 to –2.25; P = .005) for the CAPS and a pooled SMD of –5.17 (95% CI, –7.99 to –2.35; P < .001) for the PCL.

The researchers acknowledge that the sample size was very small “due to the novelty of this research area.” This prompted the inclusion of nonrandomized studies that “lowered the quality of the evidence,” they note.

Nevertheless, “these preliminary findings indicate the potential of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD,” the investigators write.
 

A promising avenue?

In a comment, Dan Iosifescu, MD, professor of psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, called the combination of ketamine and psychotherapy in PTSD “a very promising treatment avenue.”

Dr. Iosifescu, who was not involved with the research, noted that “several PTSD-focused psychotherapies are ultimately very effective but very hard to tolerate for participants.” For example, prolonged exposure therapy has dropout rates as high as 50%.

In addition, ketamine has rapid but not sustained effects in PTSD, he said.

“So in theory, a course of ketamine could help PTSD patients improve rapidly and tolerate the psychotherapy, which could provide sustained benefits,” he added.

However, Dr. Iosifescu cautioned that the data supporting this “is very sparse for now.”

He also noted that the meta-analysis included only “four tiny studies” and had only 34 total participants. In addition, several of the studies had no comparison group and the study designs were all different – “both with respect to the administration of ketamine and to the paired PTSD psychotherapy.”

For this reason, “any conclusions are only a very preliminary suggestion that this may be a fruitful avenue,” he said.

Dr. Iosifescu added that additional studies on this topic are ongoing. The largest one at the Veterans Administration will hopefully include 100 participants and “will provide more reliable evidence for this important topic,” he said.

The study was indirectly supported by the Internal Faculty Grant from the department of psychiatry, Queen’s University. Dr. Iosifescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An Ohio physician pled guilty to charges that he prescribed opioids for nonmedical purposes and continued to prescribe to patients he knew had psychiatric and substance use disorders, admitting that he also engaged in sex with at least three patients in exchange for opioids.

Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.

Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.

Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.

The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.

In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.

Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.

Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.

Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.

The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.

Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.

The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.

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

An Ohio physician pled guilty to charges that he prescribed opioids for nonmedical purposes and continued to prescribe to patients he knew had psychiatric and substance use disorders, admitting that he also engaged in sex with at least three patients in exchange for opioids.

Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.

Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.

Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.

The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.

In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.

Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.

Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.

Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.

The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.

Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.

The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.

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

An Ohio physician pled guilty to charges that he prescribed opioids for nonmedical purposes and continued to prescribe to patients he knew had psychiatric and substance use disorders, admitting that he also engaged in sex with at least three patients in exchange for opioids.

Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.

Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.

Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.

The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.

In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.

Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.

Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.

Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.

The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.

Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.

The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.

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

Regular use of over-the-counter laxatives has been tied to a significantly increased risk of dementia, particularly among those who use multiple types of laxatives or osmotic laxatives.

Among more than 500,000 middle-aged or older adults in the UK Biobank, those who reported regular laxative use had a 51% increased risk of dementia due to any cause, compared with their counterparts who did not regularly use laxatives.

Individuals who used only osmotic laxatives had a 64% increased risk, compared with peers who did not use laxatives, while those using one or more types of laxatives, including bulk-forming, stool-softening, or stimulating laxatives, had a 90% increased risk.

“Constipation and laxative use are common among middle-aged and older adults,” study investigator Feng Sha, PhD, with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangdong, China, said in a news release.

“However, regular laxative use may change the microbiome of the gut, possibly affecting nerve signaling from the gut to the brain or increasing the production of intestinal toxins that may affect the brain,” Dr. Sha noted.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Robust link

The findings are based on 502,229 people (54% women; mean age, 57 at baseline) from the UK biobank database. All were dementia-free at baseline.

A total of 18,235 participants (3.6%) said they used over-the-counter laxatives regularly, which was defined as using them most days of the week during the month before the study.

Over an average of 9.8 years, dementia was recorded in 218 (1.3%) of those who regularly used laxatives and in 1,969 (0.4%) of those did not.

After adjusting for factors such as age, sex, education, other illnesses, medication use, and a family history of dementia, regular use of laxatives was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.75) and vascular dementia (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.27), with no significant association observed for Alzheimer’s disease (aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79-1.40).

The risk of dementia also increased with the number of laxative types used. All-cause dementia risk increased by 28% (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03-1.61) for those using a single laxative type and by 90% (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.20-3.01) for those using two or more types, compared with nonuse.

Among those who reported using only one type of laxative, only those using osmotic laxatives had a statistically significant higher risk of all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.20-2.24) and vascular dementia (aHR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.04-3.75).

“These results remained robust in various subgroup and sensitivity analyses,” the investigators report.

They caution that they had no data on laxative dosage and so they were unable to explore the relationship between various laxative dosages and dementia risk.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the results are “interesting and demonstrate an association between laxative use and later life risk of dementia.”

However, “there is no proven causation, and there are some caveats,” Dr. Snyder said. “It’s unclear what may be driving this association, though other lines of research have suggested a linkage between our overall gut health, our immune system, and our brain health.”

Dr. Snyder said it’s also worth noting that the data came from the UK Biobank, which, “while a wealth of information for research purposes, is not representative of other countries. More research is needed.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial, U.S. Pointer, to examine the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis to “better understand how our gut health may affect our brains,” Dr. Snyder told this news organization.

“While we await the results of that study, people should talk to their doctor about the risks and benefits of laxatives for their health, as well as discuss alternative methods of alleviating constipation, such as increasing dietary fiber and drinking more water,” she advised.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shenzhen Science and Technology Program, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The authors and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular use of over-the-counter laxatives has been tied to a significantly increased risk of dementia, particularly among those who use multiple types of laxatives or osmotic laxatives.

Among more than 500,000 middle-aged or older adults in the UK Biobank, those who reported regular laxative use had a 51% increased risk of dementia due to any cause, compared with their counterparts who did not regularly use laxatives.

Individuals who used only osmotic laxatives had a 64% increased risk, compared with peers who did not use laxatives, while those using one or more types of laxatives, including bulk-forming, stool-softening, or stimulating laxatives, had a 90% increased risk.

“Constipation and laxative use are common among middle-aged and older adults,” study investigator Feng Sha, PhD, with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangdong, China, said in a news release.

“However, regular laxative use may change the microbiome of the gut, possibly affecting nerve signaling from the gut to the brain or increasing the production of intestinal toxins that may affect the brain,” Dr. Sha noted.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Robust link

The findings are based on 502,229 people (54% women; mean age, 57 at baseline) from the UK biobank database. All were dementia-free at baseline.

A total of 18,235 participants (3.6%) said they used over-the-counter laxatives regularly, which was defined as using them most days of the week during the month before the study.

Over an average of 9.8 years, dementia was recorded in 218 (1.3%) of those who regularly used laxatives and in 1,969 (0.4%) of those did not.

After adjusting for factors such as age, sex, education, other illnesses, medication use, and a family history of dementia, regular use of laxatives was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.75) and vascular dementia (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.27), with no significant association observed for Alzheimer’s disease (aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79-1.40).

The risk of dementia also increased with the number of laxative types used. All-cause dementia risk increased by 28% (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03-1.61) for those using a single laxative type and by 90% (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.20-3.01) for those using two or more types, compared with nonuse.

Among those who reported using only one type of laxative, only those using osmotic laxatives had a statistically significant higher risk of all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.20-2.24) and vascular dementia (aHR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.04-3.75).

“These results remained robust in various subgroup and sensitivity analyses,” the investigators report.

They caution that they had no data on laxative dosage and so they were unable to explore the relationship between various laxative dosages and dementia risk.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the results are “interesting and demonstrate an association between laxative use and later life risk of dementia.”

However, “there is no proven causation, and there are some caveats,” Dr. Snyder said. “It’s unclear what may be driving this association, though other lines of research have suggested a linkage between our overall gut health, our immune system, and our brain health.”

Dr. Snyder said it’s also worth noting that the data came from the UK Biobank, which, “while a wealth of information for research purposes, is not representative of other countries. More research is needed.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial, U.S. Pointer, to examine the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis to “better understand how our gut health may affect our brains,” Dr. Snyder told this news organization.

“While we await the results of that study, people should talk to their doctor about the risks and benefits of laxatives for their health, as well as discuss alternative methods of alleviating constipation, such as increasing dietary fiber and drinking more water,” she advised.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shenzhen Science and Technology Program, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The authors and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular use of over-the-counter laxatives has been tied to a significantly increased risk of dementia, particularly among those who use multiple types of laxatives or osmotic laxatives.

Among more than 500,000 middle-aged or older adults in the UK Biobank, those who reported regular laxative use had a 51% increased risk of dementia due to any cause, compared with their counterparts who did not regularly use laxatives.

Individuals who used only osmotic laxatives had a 64% increased risk, compared with peers who did not use laxatives, while those using one or more types of laxatives, including bulk-forming, stool-softening, or stimulating laxatives, had a 90% increased risk.

“Constipation and laxative use are common among middle-aged and older adults,” study investigator Feng Sha, PhD, with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangdong, China, said in a news release.

“However, regular laxative use may change the microbiome of the gut, possibly affecting nerve signaling from the gut to the brain or increasing the production of intestinal toxins that may affect the brain,” Dr. Sha noted.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Robust link

The findings are based on 502,229 people (54% women; mean age, 57 at baseline) from the UK biobank database. All were dementia-free at baseline.

A total of 18,235 participants (3.6%) said they used over-the-counter laxatives regularly, which was defined as using them most days of the week during the month before the study.

Over an average of 9.8 years, dementia was recorded in 218 (1.3%) of those who regularly used laxatives and in 1,969 (0.4%) of those did not.

After adjusting for factors such as age, sex, education, other illnesses, medication use, and a family history of dementia, regular use of laxatives was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.75) and vascular dementia (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.27), with no significant association observed for Alzheimer’s disease (aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79-1.40).

The risk of dementia also increased with the number of laxative types used. All-cause dementia risk increased by 28% (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03-1.61) for those using a single laxative type and by 90% (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.20-3.01) for those using two or more types, compared with nonuse.

Among those who reported using only one type of laxative, only those using osmotic laxatives had a statistically significant higher risk of all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.20-2.24) and vascular dementia (aHR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.04-3.75).

“These results remained robust in various subgroup and sensitivity analyses,” the investigators report.

They caution that they had no data on laxative dosage and so they were unable to explore the relationship between various laxative dosages and dementia risk.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the results are “interesting and demonstrate an association between laxative use and later life risk of dementia.”

However, “there is no proven causation, and there are some caveats,” Dr. Snyder said. “It’s unclear what may be driving this association, though other lines of research have suggested a linkage between our overall gut health, our immune system, and our brain health.”

Dr. Snyder said it’s also worth noting that the data came from the UK Biobank, which, “while a wealth of information for research purposes, is not representative of other countries. More research is needed.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial, U.S. Pointer, to examine the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis to “better understand how our gut health may affect our brains,” Dr. Snyder told this news organization.

“While we await the results of that study, people should talk to their doctor about the risks and benefits of laxatives for their health, as well as discuss alternative methods of alleviating constipation, such as increasing dietary fiber and drinking more water,” she advised.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shenzhen Science and Technology Program, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The authors and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Irregular sleep – such as inconsistent sleep duration or sleep timing – may increase the risk of developing atherosclerosis among adults older than age 45, a new report suggests.

In particular, variation in sleep duration of more than 2 hours per night in the same week was tied to higher rates of atherosclerosis.

“Poor sleep is linked with several cardiovascular conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” lead author Kelsie M. Full, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“Overall, we found that participants who slept varying amounts of hours throughout the week (meaning that one night they slept less, one night they slept more) were more likely to have atherosclerosis than participants who slept about the same amount of time each night,” she said.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Analyzing associations

Dr. Full and colleagues examined data from 2032 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Sleep Ancillary Study, which included adults aged between 45 and 84 years in six U.S. communities who completed 7-day wrist actigraphy assessment and kept a sleep diary between 2010 and 2013.

For subclinical markers of cardiovascular disease, participants underwent assessments of coronary artery calcium, carotid plaque presence, carotid intima-media thickness, and ankle-brachial index.

The research team assessed sleep duration, or the total number of minutes of sleep in a night, and sleep timing regularity, which was determined on the basis of the time someone initially fell asleep each night. They adjusted for cardiovascular disease risk factors and sleep characteristics, such as obstructive sleep apnea, sleep duration, and sleep fragmentation.

The average age of the participants was 68.6 years, and 53.6% were women. About 37.9% identified as White, 27.6% as Black or African American, 23.4% as Hispanic American, and 11.1% as Chinese American.

During the 7-day period, about 38% of participants experienced a change in sleep duration of more than 90 minutes, and 18% experienced a sleep duration change of more than 120 minutes. Those who had irregular sleep were more likely to be non-White, current smokers, have lower average annual incomes, have work shift schedules or did not work, and have a higher average body mass index.

For the study, sleep duration irregularity was defined as a standard deviation of more than 120 minutes. Those participants who had a greater degree of sleep irregularity were more likely to have high coronary artery calcium burden than those whose sleep duration was more more regular, defined as an SD of 60 minutes or less (> 300; prevalence ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.71), as well as abnormal ankle-brachial index (< 0.9, prevalence ratio, 1.75;95% CI, 1.03-2.95).

Further, those with irregular sleep timing (SD > 90 minutes) were more likely to have a high coronary artery calcium burden (prevalence ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.82) in comparison with those with more regular sleep timing (SD < 30 minutes).

“The biggest surprise to me was that 30% of the participants in the study had total sleep times that varied by more than 90 minutes over the course of the week,” Dr. Full said. “This is consistent with prior studies that suggest that a large proportion of the general public have irregular sleep patterns, not just shift workers.”
 

Investigating next steps

In additional analyses, Dr. Full and colleagues found that sleep duration regularity continued to be associated with high coronary artery calcium burden and abnormal ankle-brachial index when accounting for severe obstructive sleep apnea, average nightly sleep duration, and average sleep fragmentation.

Notably, when sleep duration was added, all participants with more irregular sleep durations (SD > 60 minutes) were more likely to have a high coronary artery calcium burden, compared with those with regular sleep durations (SD < 60 minutes). The results remained when participants who reported shift work, including night shift work, were excluded.

Additional studies are needed to understand the mechanisms, the study authors wrote. Night-to-night variability in sleep duration and sleep timing can cause desynchronization in the sleep-wake timing and circadian disruption.

“A key issue highlighted in this study is that sleep irregularity itself, independent of how much sleep people were getting, was related to heart health. Sleep is a naturally recurring phenomenon, and maintaining regularity helps provide stability and predictability to the body,” Michael Grandner, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview.

Dr. Grandner, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched sleep irregularity and associations with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and many other adverse outcomes.

“When people have very irregular sleep schedules, it may make it harder for the body to optimally make good use of the sleep it is getting, since it such a moving target,” he said. “The unique angle here is the ability to focus on regularity of sleep.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author received grants and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies unrelated to the research. The other authors and Dr. Grandner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Irregular sleep – such as inconsistent sleep duration or sleep timing – may increase the risk of developing atherosclerosis among adults older than age 45, a new report suggests.

In particular, variation in sleep duration of more than 2 hours per night in the same week was tied to higher rates of atherosclerosis.

“Poor sleep is linked with several cardiovascular conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” lead author Kelsie M. Full, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“Overall, we found that participants who slept varying amounts of hours throughout the week (meaning that one night they slept less, one night they slept more) were more likely to have atherosclerosis than participants who slept about the same amount of time each night,” she said.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Analyzing associations

Dr. Full and colleagues examined data from 2032 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Sleep Ancillary Study, which included adults aged between 45 and 84 years in six U.S. communities who completed 7-day wrist actigraphy assessment and kept a sleep diary between 2010 and 2013.

For subclinical markers of cardiovascular disease, participants underwent assessments of coronary artery calcium, carotid plaque presence, carotid intima-media thickness, and ankle-brachial index.

The research team assessed sleep duration, or the total number of minutes of sleep in a night, and sleep timing regularity, which was determined on the basis of the time someone initially fell asleep each night. They adjusted for cardiovascular disease risk factors and sleep characteristics, such as obstructive sleep apnea, sleep duration, and sleep fragmentation.

The average age of the participants was 68.6 years, and 53.6% were women. About 37.9% identified as White, 27.6% as Black or African American, 23.4% as Hispanic American, and 11.1% as Chinese American.

During the 7-day period, about 38% of participants experienced a change in sleep duration of more than 90 minutes, and 18% experienced a sleep duration change of more than 120 minutes. Those who had irregular sleep were more likely to be non-White, current smokers, have lower average annual incomes, have work shift schedules or did not work, and have a higher average body mass index.

For the study, sleep duration irregularity was defined as a standard deviation of more than 120 minutes. Those participants who had a greater degree of sleep irregularity were more likely to have high coronary artery calcium burden than those whose sleep duration was more more regular, defined as an SD of 60 minutes or less (> 300; prevalence ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.71), as well as abnormal ankle-brachial index (< 0.9, prevalence ratio, 1.75;95% CI, 1.03-2.95).

Further, those with irregular sleep timing (SD > 90 minutes) were more likely to have a high coronary artery calcium burden (prevalence ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.82) in comparison with those with more regular sleep timing (SD < 30 minutes).

“The biggest surprise to me was that 30% of the participants in the study had total sleep times that varied by more than 90 minutes over the course of the week,” Dr. Full said. “This is consistent with prior studies that suggest that a large proportion of the general public have irregular sleep patterns, not just shift workers.”
 

Investigating next steps

In additional analyses, Dr. Full and colleagues found that sleep duration regularity continued to be associated with high coronary artery calcium burden and abnormal ankle-brachial index when accounting for severe obstructive sleep apnea, average nightly sleep duration, and average sleep fragmentation.

Notably, when sleep duration was added, all participants with more irregular sleep durations (SD > 60 minutes) were more likely to have a high coronary artery calcium burden, compared with those with regular sleep durations (SD < 60 minutes). The results remained when participants who reported shift work, including night shift work, were excluded.

Additional studies are needed to understand the mechanisms, the study authors wrote. Night-to-night variability in sleep duration and sleep timing can cause desynchronization in the sleep-wake timing and circadian disruption.

“A key issue highlighted in this study is that sleep irregularity itself, independent of how much sleep people were getting, was related to heart health. Sleep is a naturally recurring phenomenon, and maintaining regularity helps provide stability and predictability to the body,” Michael Grandner, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview.

Dr. Grandner, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched sleep irregularity and associations with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and many other adverse outcomes.

“When people have very irregular sleep schedules, it may make it harder for the body to optimally make good use of the sleep it is getting, since it such a moving target,” he said. “The unique angle here is the ability to focus on regularity of sleep.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author received grants and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies unrelated to the research. The other authors and Dr. Grandner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Irregular sleep – such as inconsistent sleep duration or sleep timing – may increase the risk of developing atherosclerosis among adults older than age 45, a new report suggests.

In particular, variation in sleep duration of more than 2 hours per night in the same week was tied to higher rates of atherosclerosis.

“Poor sleep is linked with several cardiovascular conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” lead author Kelsie M. Full, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“Overall, we found that participants who slept varying amounts of hours throughout the week (meaning that one night they slept less, one night they slept more) were more likely to have atherosclerosis than participants who slept about the same amount of time each night,” she said.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Analyzing associations

Dr. Full and colleagues examined data from 2032 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Sleep Ancillary Study, which included adults aged between 45 and 84 years in six U.S. communities who completed 7-day wrist actigraphy assessment and kept a sleep diary between 2010 and 2013.

For subclinical markers of cardiovascular disease, participants underwent assessments of coronary artery calcium, carotid plaque presence, carotid intima-media thickness, and ankle-brachial index.

The research team assessed sleep duration, or the total number of minutes of sleep in a night, and sleep timing regularity, which was determined on the basis of the time someone initially fell asleep each night. They adjusted for cardiovascular disease risk factors and sleep characteristics, such as obstructive sleep apnea, sleep duration, and sleep fragmentation.

The average age of the participants was 68.6 years, and 53.6% were women. About 37.9% identified as White, 27.6% as Black or African American, 23.4% as Hispanic American, and 11.1% as Chinese American.

During the 7-day period, about 38% of participants experienced a change in sleep duration of more than 90 minutes, and 18% experienced a sleep duration change of more than 120 minutes. Those who had irregular sleep were more likely to be non-White, current smokers, have lower average annual incomes, have work shift schedules or did not work, and have a higher average body mass index.

For the study, sleep duration irregularity was defined as a standard deviation of more than 120 minutes. Those participants who had a greater degree of sleep irregularity were more likely to have high coronary artery calcium burden than those whose sleep duration was more more regular, defined as an SD of 60 minutes or less (> 300; prevalence ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.71), as well as abnormal ankle-brachial index (< 0.9, prevalence ratio, 1.75;95% CI, 1.03-2.95).

Further, those with irregular sleep timing (SD > 90 minutes) were more likely to have a high coronary artery calcium burden (prevalence ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.82) in comparison with those with more regular sleep timing (SD < 30 minutes).

“The biggest surprise to me was that 30% of the participants in the study had total sleep times that varied by more than 90 minutes over the course of the week,” Dr. Full said. “This is consistent with prior studies that suggest that a large proportion of the general public have irregular sleep patterns, not just shift workers.”
 

Investigating next steps

In additional analyses, Dr. Full and colleagues found that sleep duration regularity continued to be associated with high coronary artery calcium burden and abnormal ankle-brachial index when accounting for severe obstructive sleep apnea, average nightly sleep duration, and average sleep fragmentation.

Notably, when sleep duration was added, all participants with more irregular sleep durations (SD > 60 minutes) were more likely to have a high coronary artery calcium burden, compared with those with regular sleep durations (SD < 60 minutes). The results remained when participants who reported shift work, including night shift work, were excluded.

Additional studies are needed to understand the mechanisms, the study authors wrote. Night-to-night variability in sleep duration and sleep timing can cause desynchronization in the sleep-wake timing and circadian disruption.

“A key issue highlighted in this study is that sleep irregularity itself, independent of how much sleep people were getting, was related to heart health. Sleep is a naturally recurring phenomenon, and maintaining regularity helps provide stability and predictability to the body,” Michael Grandner, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview.

Dr. Grandner, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched sleep irregularity and associations with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and many other adverse outcomes.

“When people have very irregular sleep schedules, it may make it harder for the body to optimally make good use of the sleep it is getting, since it such a moving target,” he said. “The unique angle here is the ability to focus on regularity of sleep.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author received grants and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies unrelated to the research. The other authors and Dr. Grandner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational smartphone app that delivers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes led to a significant 10 percentage point cut in the incidence of antihyperglycemic-drug intensification during 6 months’ follow-up, when compared with a control phone app, in the CBT app’s pivotal trial with 669 randomized patients.

Previously reported results from this trial, called BT-001, showed that people randomized to use the CBT app had a significant average 0.4 percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c, compared with controls, after 90 days for the trial’s primary endpoint, and a significant 0.29 percentage point reduction in A1c, compared with controls, after 180 days.

The new finding, that these incremental drops in A1c occurred while the control patients also received significantly more intensification of their antihyperglycemic medication, provides further evidence for the efficacy of the CBT app, said Marc P. Bonaca, MD, in a press conference organized by the American College of Cardiology in advance of its upcoming joint scientific sessions.

The CBT app “significantly reduced A1c despite less intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy,” noted Dr. Bonaca, a vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Based on positive safety and efficacy findings from the primary-endpoint phase of the BT-001 trial, reported in Diabetes Care, the company developing the CBT app, Better Therapeutics, said in a statement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted the company’s application for de novo classification and marketing approval of the app, also called BT-001. If the agency grants this classification and marketing approval, the company plans to sell the app on a prescription basis for use by people with type 2 diabetes.


 

CBT app gives patients problem-solving skills

CBT gives people with type 2 diabetes a way to better understand their unhelpful behaviors and motivations and teaches them problem-solving skills. Providing this counseling via an app addresses the challenge of making the intervention scalable to a broad range of patients, Dr. Bonaca explained.

“Clinicians are frustrated by trying to produce behavioral change” in patients. The BT-001 app “provides a new avenue to treatment,” an approach that clinicians have been “very receptive” to using “once they understand the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “The effect at 90 days was very similar to what a drug would do. It’s not just drugs any more” for treating people with type 2 diabetes, he declared.

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” commented Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira noted in an interview.

“Once a physician explains this [CBT] app and patients understand how to use it, then patients will be happy to use it,” commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, who moderated the press conference. “We may see an explosion of apps like this one, designed to help better control” other chronic disorders, such as elevated blood pressure or abnormal lipid levels, Dr. Grapsa predicted. “I’m very optimistic that these apps have a great future in health care.”
 

Forty percent relative cut in new antihyperglycemic drug use

The BT-001 study randomized 669 adults with smartphone access and type 2 diabetes at any of six U.S. sites. The enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years, and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using prandial insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antihyperglycemic medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea.

The new results reported by Dr. Bonaca showed that, during follow-up, people using the app had a 14.4% rate of antihyperglycemic drug intensification compared with a 24.4% rate among the controls, a roughly 40% relative decrease in new antihyperglycemic medication use. In addition, among those using insulin at baseline, 3.8% of controls increased their insulin dose, compared with 1.5% of those using the CBT app, while insulin doses decreased in 0.9% of the control subjects and in 2.2% of those using the BT-001 app.

Further study findings, first reported by Dr. Bonaca at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in late 2022, also showed a clear dose-response pattern for the CBT app: the more CBT lessons a person completed, the greater their reduction in A1c over 180 days of app use. People who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use), average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times (also about one-third of the intervention group), the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

This “clear” dose-response relationship “was one of the most exciting findings. It helps validate the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “We’re now modeling which patients were the most engaged” with using the app, and “looking at ways to increase app engagement.”

Better Therapeutics also announced, in December 2022, results from a separate, uncontrolled study of a similar CBT app in 19 people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The findings showed that use of the tested app linked with an average 16% drop from baseline in liver fat content as measured by MRI, as well as other improvements in markers of hepatic function. The company said in a statement that based on these findings it planned to apply for breakthrough-device designation with the FDA for use of a liver-specific CBT app in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira and Dr. Grapsa had no disclosures.

An investigational smartphone app that delivers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes led to a significant 10 percentage point cut in the incidence of antihyperglycemic-drug intensification during 6 months’ follow-up, when compared with a control phone app, in the CBT app’s pivotal trial with 669 randomized patients.

Previously reported results from this trial, called BT-001, showed that people randomized to use the CBT app had a significant average 0.4 percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c, compared with controls, after 90 days for the trial’s primary endpoint, and a significant 0.29 percentage point reduction in A1c, compared with controls, after 180 days.

The new finding, that these incremental drops in A1c occurred while the control patients also received significantly more intensification of their antihyperglycemic medication, provides further evidence for the efficacy of the CBT app, said Marc P. Bonaca, MD, in a press conference organized by the American College of Cardiology in advance of its upcoming joint scientific sessions.

The CBT app “significantly reduced A1c despite less intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy,” noted Dr. Bonaca, a vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Based on positive safety and efficacy findings from the primary-endpoint phase of the BT-001 trial, reported in Diabetes Care, the company developing the CBT app, Better Therapeutics, said in a statement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted the company’s application for de novo classification and marketing approval of the app, also called BT-001. If the agency grants this classification and marketing approval, the company plans to sell the app on a prescription basis for use by people with type 2 diabetes.


 

CBT app gives patients problem-solving skills

CBT gives people with type 2 diabetes a way to better understand their unhelpful behaviors and motivations and teaches them problem-solving skills. Providing this counseling via an app addresses the challenge of making the intervention scalable to a broad range of patients, Dr. Bonaca explained.

“Clinicians are frustrated by trying to produce behavioral change” in patients. The BT-001 app “provides a new avenue to treatment,” an approach that clinicians have been “very receptive” to using “once they understand the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “The effect at 90 days was very similar to what a drug would do. It’s not just drugs any more” for treating people with type 2 diabetes, he declared.

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” commented Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira noted in an interview.

“Once a physician explains this [CBT] app and patients understand how to use it, then patients will be happy to use it,” commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, who moderated the press conference. “We may see an explosion of apps like this one, designed to help better control” other chronic disorders, such as elevated blood pressure or abnormal lipid levels, Dr. Grapsa predicted. “I’m very optimistic that these apps have a great future in health care.”
 

Forty percent relative cut in new antihyperglycemic drug use

The BT-001 study randomized 669 adults with smartphone access and type 2 diabetes at any of six U.S. sites. The enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years, and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using prandial insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antihyperglycemic medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea.

The new results reported by Dr. Bonaca showed that, during follow-up, people using the app had a 14.4% rate of antihyperglycemic drug intensification compared with a 24.4% rate among the controls, a roughly 40% relative decrease in new antihyperglycemic medication use. In addition, among those using insulin at baseline, 3.8% of controls increased their insulin dose, compared with 1.5% of those using the CBT app, while insulin doses decreased in 0.9% of the control subjects and in 2.2% of those using the BT-001 app.

Further study findings, first reported by Dr. Bonaca at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in late 2022, also showed a clear dose-response pattern for the CBT app: the more CBT lessons a person completed, the greater their reduction in A1c over 180 days of app use. People who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use), average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times (also about one-third of the intervention group), the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

This “clear” dose-response relationship “was one of the most exciting findings. It helps validate the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “We’re now modeling which patients were the most engaged” with using the app, and “looking at ways to increase app engagement.”

Better Therapeutics also announced, in December 2022, results from a separate, uncontrolled study of a similar CBT app in 19 people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The findings showed that use of the tested app linked with an average 16% drop from baseline in liver fat content as measured by MRI, as well as other improvements in markers of hepatic function. The company said in a statement that based on these findings it planned to apply for breakthrough-device designation with the FDA for use of a liver-specific CBT app in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira and Dr. Grapsa had no disclosures.

An investigational smartphone app that delivers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes led to a significant 10 percentage point cut in the incidence of antihyperglycemic-drug intensification during 6 months’ follow-up, when compared with a control phone app, in the CBT app’s pivotal trial with 669 randomized patients.

Previously reported results from this trial, called BT-001, showed that people randomized to use the CBT app had a significant average 0.4 percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c, compared with controls, after 90 days for the trial’s primary endpoint, and a significant 0.29 percentage point reduction in A1c, compared with controls, after 180 days.

The new finding, that these incremental drops in A1c occurred while the control patients also received significantly more intensification of their antihyperglycemic medication, provides further evidence for the efficacy of the CBT app, said Marc P. Bonaca, MD, in a press conference organized by the American College of Cardiology in advance of its upcoming joint scientific sessions.

The CBT app “significantly reduced A1c despite less intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy,” noted Dr. Bonaca, a vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Based on positive safety and efficacy findings from the primary-endpoint phase of the BT-001 trial, reported in Diabetes Care, the company developing the CBT app, Better Therapeutics, said in a statement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted the company’s application for de novo classification and marketing approval of the app, also called BT-001. If the agency grants this classification and marketing approval, the company plans to sell the app on a prescription basis for use by people with type 2 diabetes.


 

CBT app gives patients problem-solving skills

CBT gives people with type 2 diabetes a way to better understand their unhelpful behaviors and motivations and teaches them problem-solving skills. Providing this counseling via an app addresses the challenge of making the intervention scalable to a broad range of patients, Dr. Bonaca explained.

“Clinicians are frustrated by trying to produce behavioral change” in patients. The BT-001 app “provides a new avenue to treatment,” an approach that clinicians have been “very receptive” to using “once they understand the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “The effect at 90 days was very similar to what a drug would do. It’s not just drugs any more” for treating people with type 2 diabetes, he declared.

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” commented Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira noted in an interview.

“Once a physician explains this [CBT] app and patients understand how to use it, then patients will be happy to use it,” commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, who moderated the press conference. “We may see an explosion of apps like this one, designed to help better control” other chronic disorders, such as elevated blood pressure or abnormal lipid levels, Dr. Grapsa predicted. “I’m very optimistic that these apps have a great future in health care.”
 

Forty percent relative cut in new antihyperglycemic drug use

The BT-001 study randomized 669 adults with smartphone access and type 2 diabetes at any of six U.S. sites. The enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years, and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using prandial insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antihyperglycemic medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea.

The new results reported by Dr. Bonaca showed that, during follow-up, people using the app had a 14.4% rate of antihyperglycemic drug intensification compared with a 24.4% rate among the controls, a roughly 40% relative decrease in new antihyperglycemic medication use. In addition, among those using insulin at baseline, 3.8% of controls increased their insulin dose, compared with 1.5% of those using the CBT app, while insulin doses decreased in 0.9% of the control subjects and in 2.2% of those using the BT-001 app.

Further study findings, first reported by Dr. Bonaca at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in late 2022, also showed a clear dose-response pattern for the CBT app: the more CBT lessons a person completed, the greater their reduction in A1c over 180 days of app use. People who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use), average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times (also about one-third of the intervention group), the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

This “clear” dose-response relationship “was one of the most exciting findings. It helps validate the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “We’re now modeling which patients were the most engaged” with using the app, and “looking at ways to increase app engagement.”

Better Therapeutics also announced, in December 2022, results from a separate, uncontrolled study of a similar CBT app in 19 people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The findings showed that use of the tested app linked with an average 16% drop from baseline in liver fat content as measured by MRI, as well as other improvements in markers of hepatic function. The company said in a statement that based on these findings it planned to apply for breakthrough-device designation with the FDA for use of a liver-specific CBT app in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira and Dr. Grapsa had no disclosures.