Federal Practitioner

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For as long as we’ve had official recommendations for exercise, those recommendations have focused on effort.

Do at least 150 minutes a week of “moderate to vigorous” physical activity, public health guidelines say. That could be anything from brisk walking (moderate) to competitive mountain-bike racing (vigorous). 

But as broad as that spectrum is, it still leaves out a lot. Like washing dishes. Or changing a diaper. Or birdwatching in the park. Or giving a PowerPoint presentation. 

All those tasks are “light” physical activities. We don’t think of them as exercise, and public health guidelines don’t account for them.

But at least one researcher believes we should take them more seriously. 

“Light physical activity appears to be the key to almost universal success regarding health,” said  Andrew Agbaje, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Eastern Finland.
 

The high cost of not moving

Any parent, teacher, or caregiver can tell you that children slow down as they age. Youngsters who were bouncing off walls at 11 may move very little at 24. But it’s not necessarily their fault. 

“We are more or less forcing them into sedentary behavior,” Dr. Agbaje said, pointing to things such as school, homework, and all the other situations that require young people to sit still. Their free time, in turn, increasingly involves screens, which keep them sitting even longer.

“We’re playing with a time bomb,” Dr. Agbaje said. 

In a recent study of nearly 800 children, Dr. Agbaje measured how the children’s activity changed between the ages of 11 and 24.

The goal was to see how those changes affected their C-reactive protein.

Several findings stand out:

• The children’s moderate-to-vigorous activity was unchanged over time. It was about 60 minutes a day for males and 45 minutes a day for females at 11 and 24 years old.
• Light physical activity declined by about 3.5 hours a day.
• Sedentary behaviors – sitting, sleeping, or otherwise barely moving – increased by almost 3 hours a day.
• C-reactive protein increased significantly from age 15, when it was first measured, to 24. It nearly doubled in males and tripled in females. 

While sedentariness was strongly linked to rising C-reactive protein, activity at any intensity was associated with lower inflammation.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle: The more body fat participants had, the less effective physical activity was in fighting inflammation. Body fat reduced the benefit of moderate-to-vigorous activity by close to 80%. 

That wasn’t the case for light physical activity. Body fat mitigated just 30% of the benefit.  

“Light physical activity looks like an unsung hero, which is surprising and new,” Dr. Agbaje said. “We might need to focus on that in this generation.”
 

The time-intensity continuum

That said, there are good reasons for public health guidelines to focus on higher intensities.

Take, for example, a study of Swedish military conscripts who underwent a battery of fitness tests in the early 1970s, when they were 18. Four decades later, those who had the highest exercise capacity in their late teens were 19% less likely to have subclinical levels of arterial plaque. 

Higher exercise capacity is usually the result of higher-intensity exercise. 

“The relationship between physical activity and exercise capacity is bidirectional and dynamic,” said study author Melony Fortuin-de Smidt, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at Umeå University in Sweden. 

In other words, what you can do now reflects what you did in the past, and what you do now will affect what you can do in the future – for better or for worse.

That’s not to say you can’t get the same benefit from lower-intensity activities. But there’s a catch: “You will need to do more,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

In another recent study, Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt and coauthors calculated that you’d need 60 minutes of walking at a “normal” pace to get the same reduction in cardiovascular disease risk as you’d get from 40 minutes of brisk walking.

But those figures “should be interpreted cautiously,” since they include self-reported data, she said. 

A 2019 study that used data from activity trackers came up with starkly different estimates: To get maximum protection from the risk of early death, you’d need 24 minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous activity or 6-plus hours of light activity – “15 times longer to reap the same mortality benefits,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

Notably, that study includes an in-between category the authors call “high” light physical activity. That could include low-intensity yoga or calisthenics, cooking or cleaning, and shopping or gardening. For those activities, you’d need just 75 minutes a day to get the same health benefits as 24 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity. 

It’s worth mentioning that any of those activities could also be regular light or even moderate-to-vigorous, depending on how quickly or slowly you do them. Intensity is not about the activity type – it’s about the effort you put into doing it.


 

When light makes right

The message isn’t to obsessively categorize every movement into vigorous, moderate, “high” light, or regular light. Most of our activities probably include some combination.

The goal is to take more steps. 

“Every move and every step counts towards better health,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

Dr. Agbaje compares exercise to medicine. Each of us needs to adjust the exercise dose to fit our needs, goals, and abilities. 

A tough workout for an average adult might qualify as a warm-up for a well-trained athlete, while the athlete’s warm-up might be dangerous for someone who’s not prepared for it.

That, Dr. Agbaje said, is the best argument for moving more whenever possible, even if it doesn’t feel like exercise. 

“For everybody, light physical activity is safe,” he said. “Just go for a walk.”
 

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

For as long as we’ve had official recommendations for exercise, those recommendations have focused on effort.

Do at least 150 minutes a week of “moderate to vigorous” physical activity, public health guidelines say. That could be anything from brisk walking (moderate) to competitive mountain-bike racing (vigorous). 

But as broad as that spectrum is, it still leaves out a lot. Like washing dishes. Or changing a diaper. Or birdwatching in the park. Or giving a PowerPoint presentation. 

All those tasks are “light” physical activities. We don’t think of them as exercise, and public health guidelines don’t account for them.

But at least one researcher believes we should take them more seriously. 

“Light physical activity appears to be the key to almost universal success regarding health,” said  Andrew Agbaje, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Eastern Finland.
 

The high cost of not moving

Any parent, teacher, or caregiver can tell you that children slow down as they age. Youngsters who were bouncing off walls at 11 may move very little at 24. But it’s not necessarily their fault. 

“We are more or less forcing them into sedentary behavior,” Dr. Agbaje said, pointing to things such as school, homework, and all the other situations that require young people to sit still. Their free time, in turn, increasingly involves screens, which keep them sitting even longer.

“We’re playing with a time bomb,” Dr. Agbaje said. 

In a recent study of nearly 800 children, Dr. Agbaje measured how the children’s activity changed between the ages of 11 and 24.

The goal was to see how those changes affected their C-reactive protein.

Several findings stand out:

• The children’s moderate-to-vigorous activity was unchanged over time. It was about 60 minutes a day for males and 45 minutes a day for females at 11 and 24 years old.
• Light physical activity declined by about 3.5 hours a day.
• Sedentary behaviors – sitting, sleeping, or otherwise barely moving – increased by almost 3 hours a day.
• C-reactive protein increased significantly from age 15, when it was first measured, to 24. It nearly doubled in males and tripled in females. 

While sedentariness was strongly linked to rising C-reactive protein, activity at any intensity was associated with lower inflammation.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle: The more body fat participants had, the less effective physical activity was in fighting inflammation. Body fat reduced the benefit of moderate-to-vigorous activity by close to 80%. 

That wasn’t the case for light physical activity. Body fat mitigated just 30% of the benefit.  

“Light physical activity looks like an unsung hero, which is surprising and new,” Dr. Agbaje said. “We might need to focus on that in this generation.”
 

The time-intensity continuum

That said, there are good reasons for public health guidelines to focus on higher intensities.

Take, for example, a study of Swedish military conscripts who underwent a battery of fitness tests in the early 1970s, when they were 18. Four decades later, those who had the highest exercise capacity in their late teens were 19% less likely to have subclinical levels of arterial plaque. 

Higher exercise capacity is usually the result of higher-intensity exercise. 

“The relationship between physical activity and exercise capacity is bidirectional and dynamic,” said study author Melony Fortuin-de Smidt, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at Umeå University in Sweden. 

In other words, what you can do now reflects what you did in the past, and what you do now will affect what you can do in the future – for better or for worse.

That’s not to say you can’t get the same benefit from lower-intensity activities. But there’s a catch: “You will need to do more,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

In another recent study, Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt and coauthors calculated that you’d need 60 minutes of walking at a “normal” pace to get the same reduction in cardiovascular disease risk as you’d get from 40 minutes of brisk walking.

But those figures “should be interpreted cautiously,” since they include self-reported data, she said. 

A 2019 study that used data from activity trackers came up with starkly different estimates: To get maximum protection from the risk of early death, you’d need 24 minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous activity or 6-plus hours of light activity – “15 times longer to reap the same mortality benefits,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

Notably, that study includes an in-between category the authors call “high” light physical activity. That could include low-intensity yoga or calisthenics, cooking or cleaning, and shopping or gardening. For those activities, you’d need just 75 minutes a day to get the same health benefits as 24 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity. 

It’s worth mentioning that any of those activities could also be regular light or even moderate-to-vigorous, depending on how quickly or slowly you do them. Intensity is not about the activity type – it’s about the effort you put into doing it.


 

When light makes right

The message isn’t to obsessively categorize every movement into vigorous, moderate, “high” light, or regular light. Most of our activities probably include some combination.

The goal is to take more steps. 

“Every move and every step counts towards better health,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

Dr. Agbaje compares exercise to medicine. Each of us needs to adjust the exercise dose to fit our needs, goals, and abilities. 

A tough workout for an average adult might qualify as a warm-up for a well-trained athlete, while the athlete’s warm-up might be dangerous for someone who’s not prepared for it.

That, Dr. Agbaje said, is the best argument for moving more whenever possible, even if it doesn’t feel like exercise. 

“For everybody, light physical activity is safe,” he said. “Just go for a walk.”
 

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

For as long as we’ve had official recommendations for exercise, those recommendations have focused on effort.

Do at least 150 minutes a week of “moderate to vigorous” physical activity, public health guidelines say. That could be anything from brisk walking (moderate) to competitive mountain-bike racing (vigorous). 

But as broad as that spectrum is, it still leaves out a lot. Like washing dishes. Or changing a diaper. Or birdwatching in the park. Or giving a PowerPoint presentation. 

All those tasks are “light” physical activities. We don’t think of them as exercise, and public health guidelines don’t account for them.

But at least one researcher believes we should take them more seriously. 

“Light physical activity appears to be the key to almost universal success regarding health,” said  Andrew Agbaje, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Eastern Finland.
 

The high cost of not moving

Any parent, teacher, or caregiver can tell you that children slow down as they age. Youngsters who were bouncing off walls at 11 may move very little at 24. But it’s not necessarily their fault. 

“We are more or less forcing them into sedentary behavior,” Dr. Agbaje said, pointing to things such as school, homework, and all the other situations that require young people to sit still. Their free time, in turn, increasingly involves screens, which keep them sitting even longer.

“We’re playing with a time bomb,” Dr. Agbaje said. 

In a recent study of nearly 800 children, Dr. Agbaje measured how the children’s activity changed between the ages of 11 and 24.

The goal was to see how those changes affected their C-reactive protein.

Several findings stand out:

• The children’s moderate-to-vigorous activity was unchanged over time. It was about 60 minutes a day for males and 45 minutes a day for females at 11 and 24 years old.
• Light physical activity declined by about 3.5 hours a day.
• Sedentary behaviors – sitting, sleeping, or otherwise barely moving – increased by almost 3 hours a day.
• C-reactive protein increased significantly from age 15, when it was first measured, to 24. It nearly doubled in males and tripled in females. 

While sedentariness was strongly linked to rising C-reactive protein, activity at any intensity was associated with lower inflammation.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle: The more body fat participants had, the less effective physical activity was in fighting inflammation. Body fat reduced the benefit of moderate-to-vigorous activity by close to 80%. 

That wasn’t the case for light physical activity. Body fat mitigated just 30% of the benefit.  

“Light physical activity looks like an unsung hero, which is surprising and new,” Dr. Agbaje said. “We might need to focus on that in this generation.”
 

The time-intensity continuum

That said, there are good reasons for public health guidelines to focus on higher intensities.

Take, for example, a study of Swedish military conscripts who underwent a battery of fitness tests in the early 1970s, when they were 18. Four decades later, those who had the highest exercise capacity in their late teens were 19% less likely to have subclinical levels of arterial plaque. 

Higher exercise capacity is usually the result of higher-intensity exercise. 

“The relationship between physical activity and exercise capacity is bidirectional and dynamic,” said study author Melony Fortuin-de Smidt, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at Umeå University in Sweden. 

In other words, what you can do now reflects what you did in the past, and what you do now will affect what you can do in the future – for better or for worse.

That’s not to say you can’t get the same benefit from lower-intensity activities. But there’s a catch: “You will need to do more,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

In another recent study, Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt and coauthors calculated that you’d need 60 minutes of walking at a “normal” pace to get the same reduction in cardiovascular disease risk as you’d get from 40 minutes of brisk walking.

But those figures “should be interpreted cautiously,” since they include self-reported data, she said. 

A 2019 study that used data from activity trackers came up with starkly different estimates: To get maximum protection from the risk of early death, you’d need 24 minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous activity or 6-plus hours of light activity – “15 times longer to reap the same mortality benefits,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

Notably, that study includes an in-between category the authors call “high” light physical activity. That could include low-intensity yoga or calisthenics, cooking or cleaning, and shopping or gardening. For those activities, you’d need just 75 minutes a day to get the same health benefits as 24 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity. 

It’s worth mentioning that any of those activities could also be regular light or even moderate-to-vigorous, depending on how quickly or slowly you do them. Intensity is not about the activity type – it’s about the effort you put into doing it.


 

When light makes right

The message isn’t to obsessively categorize every movement into vigorous, moderate, “high” light, or regular light. Most of our activities probably include some combination.

The goal is to take more steps. 

“Every move and every step counts towards better health,” Dr. Fortuin-de Smidt said. 

Dr. Agbaje compares exercise to medicine. Each of us needs to adjust the exercise dose to fit our needs, goals, and abilities. 

A tough workout for an average adult might qualify as a warm-up for a well-trained athlete, while the athlete’s warm-up might be dangerous for someone who’s not prepared for it.

That, Dr. Agbaje said, is the best argument for moving more whenever possible, even if it doesn’t feel like exercise. 

“For everybody, light physical activity is safe,” he said. “Just go for a walk.”
 

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

Eastern and southeastern areas of the United States have the highest rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research shows.

Investigators at Rush University in Chicago found AD prevalence was highest in Maryland, New York, Mississippi, and Florida. At the county level, Miami-Dade in Florida, Baltimore city, and Bronx County in New York were among the U.S. counties with the highest prevalence of the disease.

Such geographical variations may be caused by the unique make-up of regional populations, study investigator Kumar Rajan, PhD, professor of medicine and director of Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Rajan presented the research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

High-impact research

An estimated 6.7 million Americans are living with AD, a figure that’s expected to double by 2050. Estimating the prevalence of Alzheimer’s across states’ counties can provide a better understanding of region-specific disease burden and have policy implications for resource allocation, Dr. Rajan noted.

To determine the state- and county-specific prevalence of AD, the researchers applied AD data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a population-based study that’s about 60% African American, to county- and state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“We used estimates in our study in Chicago, which began in the 1990s and has approximately 10,800 people, and projected those estimates to county-level populations to see what the variations look like,” said Dr. Rajan.

Of 3,142 counties in 50 states, the East and Southeastern regions of the United States had the highest AD prevalence. For states, the highest rates were in Maryland (12.9%), New York (12.7%), Mississippi (12.5%), and Florida (12.5%).

California and Illinois were also among the top 10 states with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s.

California had the highest number of residents, with 719,000 (95% confidence interval, 665,000-774,400), followed by Florida with 579,000 (95% CI, 539,900 to 620,000), and Texas with 459,000 (95% CI, 422,700 to 496,000).

The three counties with the highest prevalence, all with 16.6%, were Miami-Dade County, Baltimore city, and Bronx County.

One county in the top 10 for AD prevalence was El Paso, Tex., which Dr. Rajan found “a bit surprising,” as Texas was not among the top four states with the highest prevalence.

In addition to older age, what’s likely driving elevated AD prevalence in these areas is the substantially larger proportion of minority populations who are at higher risk for AD, possibly due to health disparities, said Dr. Rajan.

Determining local-level estimates of AD should have “a very high impact” on public health programs aimed at AD prevention, detection, and treatment, he said. In addition, as more AD drugs are approved, there will likely be county-level and even state-level implications for Medicare coverage.

In addition, these new findings could help physicians treating or caring for minority populations “understand the landscape of what the disease looks like,” said Dr. Rajan.

A limitation of the study was that it was based on data from a single study, he noted.

The next step is to expand this research. Dr. Rajan and others are establishing the Regional and Ethnic Variations in Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Health Consortium, with the goal of gaining a better understanding of AD prevalence across six U.S. regions.
 

Optimal resource distribution

In a comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, said the research provides useful information about AD prevalence at the local level.

“We need to understand how specific demographics and characteristics can help explain some of the high prevalence in certain areas.”

Compared with White Americans, Dr. Griffin noted that Black Americans are twice as likely to have AD, and older Hispanic Americans are 1.5 times as likely.

This new data will help pinpoint areas of high risk and high need so that funding, staffing, and other resources for those with AD and other dementias can be optimally distributed, he said.

“It gives us that kind of geographic specificity in terms of the prevalence so we can dig deeper and better allocate resources on a county level,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association “is fully committed to working with local agencies and being in the communities to assist them in their efforts to intervene in this disease.”

The study also highlights the need for more research to determine what factors other than age and race – such as potential environmental factors – might affect regional AD prevalence, he said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rajan and Dr. Griffin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eastern and southeastern areas of the United States have the highest rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research shows.

Investigators at Rush University in Chicago found AD prevalence was highest in Maryland, New York, Mississippi, and Florida. At the county level, Miami-Dade in Florida, Baltimore city, and Bronx County in New York were among the U.S. counties with the highest prevalence of the disease.

Such geographical variations may be caused by the unique make-up of regional populations, study investigator Kumar Rajan, PhD, professor of medicine and director of Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Rajan presented the research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

High-impact research

An estimated 6.7 million Americans are living with AD, a figure that’s expected to double by 2050. Estimating the prevalence of Alzheimer’s across states’ counties can provide a better understanding of region-specific disease burden and have policy implications for resource allocation, Dr. Rajan noted.

To determine the state- and county-specific prevalence of AD, the researchers applied AD data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a population-based study that’s about 60% African American, to county- and state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“We used estimates in our study in Chicago, which began in the 1990s and has approximately 10,800 people, and projected those estimates to county-level populations to see what the variations look like,” said Dr. Rajan.

Of 3,142 counties in 50 states, the East and Southeastern regions of the United States had the highest AD prevalence. For states, the highest rates were in Maryland (12.9%), New York (12.7%), Mississippi (12.5%), and Florida (12.5%).

California and Illinois were also among the top 10 states with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s.

California had the highest number of residents, with 719,000 (95% confidence interval, 665,000-774,400), followed by Florida with 579,000 (95% CI, 539,900 to 620,000), and Texas with 459,000 (95% CI, 422,700 to 496,000).

The three counties with the highest prevalence, all with 16.6%, were Miami-Dade County, Baltimore city, and Bronx County.

One county in the top 10 for AD prevalence was El Paso, Tex., which Dr. Rajan found “a bit surprising,” as Texas was not among the top four states with the highest prevalence.

In addition to older age, what’s likely driving elevated AD prevalence in these areas is the substantially larger proportion of minority populations who are at higher risk for AD, possibly due to health disparities, said Dr. Rajan.

Determining local-level estimates of AD should have “a very high impact” on public health programs aimed at AD prevention, detection, and treatment, he said. In addition, as more AD drugs are approved, there will likely be county-level and even state-level implications for Medicare coverage.

In addition, these new findings could help physicians treating or caring for minority populations “understand the landscape of what the disease looks like,” said Dr. Rajan.

A limitation of the study was that it was based on data from a single study, he noted.

The next step is to expand this research. Dr. Rajan and others are establishing the Regional and Ethnic Variations in Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Health Consortium, with the goal of gaining a better understanding of AD prevalence across six U.S. regions.
 

Optimal resource distribution

In a comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, said the research provides useful information about AD prevalence at the local level.

“We need to understand how specific demographics and characteristics can help explain some of the high prevalence in certain areas.”

Compared with White Americans, Dr. Griffin noted that Black Americans are twice as likely to have AD, and older Hispanic Americans are 1.5 times as likely.

This new data will help pinpoint areas of high risk and high need so that funding, staffing, and other resources for those with AD and other dementias can be optimally distributed, he said.

“It gives us that kind of geographic specificity in terms of the prevalence so we can dig deeper and better allocate resources on a county level,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association “is fully committed to working with local agencies and being in the communities to assist them in their efforts to intervene in this disease.”

The study also highlights the need for more research to determine what factors other than age and race – such as potential environmental factors – might affect regional AD prevalence, he said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rajan and Dr. Griffin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eastern and southeastern areas of the United States have the highest rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research shows.

Investigators at Rush University in Chicago found AD prevalence was highest in Maryland, New York, Mississippi, and Florida. At the county level, Miami-Dade in Florida, Baltimore city, and Bronx County in New York were among the U.S. counties with the highest prevalence of the disease.

Such geographical variations may be caused by the unique make-up of regional populations, study investigator Kumar Rajan, PhD, professor of medicine and director of Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Rajan presented the research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

High-impact research

An estimated 6.7 million Americans are living with AD, a figure that’s expected to double by 2050. Estimating the prevalence of Alzheimer’s across states’ counties can provide a better understanding of region-specific disease burden and have policy implications for resource allocation, Dr. Rajan noted.

To determine the state- and county-specific prevalence of AD, the researchers applied AD data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a population-based study that’s about 60% African American, to county- and state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“We used estimates in our study in Chicago, which began in the 1990s and has approximately 10,800 people, and projected those estimates to county-level populations to see what the variations look like,” said Dr. Rajan.

Of 3,142 counties in 50 states, the East and Southeastern regions of the United States had the highest AD prevalence. For states, the highest rates were in Maryland (12.9%), New York (12.7%), Mississippi (12.5%), and Florida (12.5%).

California and Illinois were also among the top 10 states with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s.

California had the highest number of residents, with 719,000 (95% confidence interval, 665,000-774,400), followed by Florida with 579,000 (95% CI, 539,900 to 620,000), and Texas with 459,000 (95% CI, 422,700 to 496,000).

The three counties with the highest prevalence, all with 16.6%, were Miami-Dade County, Baltimore city, and Bronx County.

One county in the top 10 for AD prevalence was El Paso, Tex., which Dr. Rajan found “a bit surprising,” as Texas was not among the top four states with the highest prevalence.

In addition to older age, what’s likely driving elevated AD prevalence in these areas is the substantially larger proportion of minority populations who are at higher risk for AD, possibly due to health disparities, said Dr. Rajan.

Determining local-level estimates of AD should have “a very high impact” on public health programs aimed at AD prevention, detection, and treatment, he said. In addition, as more AD drugs are approved, there will likely be county-level and even state-level implications for Medicare coverage.

In addition, these new findings could help physicians treating or caring for minority populations “understand the landscape of what the disease looks like,” said Dr. Rajan.

A limitation of the study was that it was based on data from a single study, he noted.

The next step is to expand this research. Dr. Rajan and others are establishing the Regional and Ethnic Variations in Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Health Consortium, with the goal of gaining a better understanding of AD prevalence across six U.S. regions.
 

Optimal resource distribution

In a comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, said the research provides useful information about AD prevalence at the local level.

“We need to understand how specific demographics and characteristics can help explain some of the high prevalence in certain areas.”

Compared with White Americans, Dr. Griffin noted that Black Americans are twice as likely to have AD, and older Hispanic Americans are 1.5 times as likely.

This new data will help pinpoint areas of high risk and high need so that funding, staffing, and other resources for those with AD and other dementias can be optimally distributed, he said.

“It gives us that kind of geographic specificity in terms of the prevalence so we can dig deeper and better allocate resources on a county level,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association “is fully committed to working with local agencies and being in the communities to assist them in their efforts to intervene in this disease.”

The study also highlights the need for more research to determine what factors other than age and race – such as potential environmental factors – might affect regional AD prevalence, he said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rajan and Dr. Griffin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Are there medical conditions other than obesity where physicians, if even inadvertently, regularly sabotage their patients’ efforts at managing them? Because for patients with obesity, their physicians, sometimes even before they walk into the examining room to meet them, do and say things that may quash their weight loss efforts.

No doubt this list will be nonexhaustive, but here are what I see as the top 10 ways doctors sabotage their patients’ weight loss journeys.

• 1. Having an office that is anxiety provoking, exclusionary, and/or fat phobic for people with obesity, which in turn may remove trust and preclude conversation. Examples of this would be offices without chairs in the waiting room that are suitable for people with obesity; with reading materials such as glossy magazines like Men’s Health and Shape, glorifying unhealthy dieting and body ideals; or where the scale is in a nonprivate area or has a very narrow platform, or maxes out at a weight lower than many patients’.
• 2. Not taking an actual history. Meaning, physicians regularly launch into a “you should really lose weight” speech without exploring a patient’s history of weight loss and social determinants of health. In some cases, that patient may have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, and then this discussion needs to be approached carefully with those facts underwriting its tenor and direction. In other cases, patients’ social determinants of health would make intentional behavior change efforts in the name of weight management an impossible luxury. And sometimes that same patient may in fact be maintaining a clinically meaningful weight loss from their peak weight already. In all cases, not speaking with your patients and instead speaking at your patients will not increase their likelihood to trust or follow or seek your advice.
• 3. Pushing useless diet advice. The most common and most useless are some variation on needing to just eat less and move more. That’s about as useful as telling someone that making money requires them to buy low and sell high. Or telling someone with depression that they should just cheer up and look at the bright side of things.
• 4. Pushing specific diet advice (intermittent fasting, keto, low carb, vegan, low fat, whatever) as if it’s the only way or the best way to lose weight. The research is clear: There is no one best dietary approach, and one person’s best diet is another person’s worst. Yet, some clinicians are themselves diet zealots and preach one diet over all others. Of course, many of their patients may well have already tried that approach, while others won’t enjoy it, and so promoting it above all others will fail a great many people.
• 5. Refusing to prescribe medications to patients who meet the clinical criteria for use, especially now that there are truly effective and useful medications. Do these same clinicians refuse to prescribe antihypertensives or oral hypoglycemics to patients whose blood pressures or blood sugars are risking their health? Related would be those clinicians who don’t bother to learn enough about pharmaceutical options for obesity to feel comfortable prescribing them. This, despite the fact that statistically, well over 30% of their patients have obesity, and polls suggest that at least half of those embark on weight loss efforts annually. If a patient meets clinical criteria for a medication’s approved indication and a doctor won’t prescribe it because of their personal beliefs, in my opinion that’s grounds for a regulatory complaint.
• 6. Fearmongering around medications regarding adverse or unknown effects. The media’s coverage of new antiobesity medications is alarmist, to say the least, and for reasons I can’t fathom, given how well tolerated these medications are when dose titration is slow, monitored, and adjusted appropriately. Many physicians are not only buying into media narratives but are also spreading them.
• 7. Stopping medications for obesity when weight is lost. Do you also stop blood pressure medications when they normalize a patient’s blood pressure? Chronic conditions require ongoing long-term treatment. And yet I hear about this in my practice regularly.
• 8. Prescribing medications that cause weight gain rather than alternatives that don’t, or without discussion of same, or without the concomitant prescription of medication to counter it. From atypical antipsychotics to antidepressants to certain antiseizure medications to some blood pressure medications, there are those that have been shown to lead to, at times, dramatic weight gain. Yet, physicians will still regularly prescribe them to patients with obesity without first trying patients on available alternatives that don’t lead to weight gain, or without at least monitoring and then considering the prescription of an antiobesity medication to try to mitigate iatrogenic gain.
• 9. Setting ridiculous and unrealistic weight loss goals with patients. Without medication, the average person may lose 10% of their weight with purely behavioral efforts, 15%-20% with the addition of medications to those behavioral efforts, and 30% with the addition of bariatric surgery to their behavioral efforts. So why do so many physicians suggest goals that greatly exceed those averages? Imagine being committed to learning to run and having your running coach tell you at your training outset that your goal is to run a marathon within a Boston Marathon qualifying time. The goal should be whatever weight a person reaches living the healthiest life that they can honestly enjoy, not the Boston Marathon of weight loss.
• 10. Not discussing all options with all patients. Yes, food and fitness levers can affect weight, but that doesn’t mean that patients who meet the medical criteria for antiobesity medication or bariatric surgery shouldn’t be informed of their options. Our job as physicians is to fully inform our patients about the risks and benefits of all treatment options and then to support our patients’ decisions as to what option they want to pursue (including none, by the way). Our job is not to exclude discussion of proven and available options because our weight biases see us personally not believing in them – or worse, thinking that patients haven’t tried food and fitness umpteen times before, and that we require them to fail those efforts yet again before we stop gatekeeping their access to effective adjunctive therapeutic interventions.

Until recently, underwriting weight bias in medicine has been the dearth of effective treatments which in turn probably contributed to the overall lack of education for physicians in obesity management despite its extremely high prevalence. The times, though, are definitely a-changin’. Consequent to these new generations of medications rapidly coming online, by necessity we will see improvements in medical education around obesity management. Meanwhile, their efficacy will help dispel the bias that underlies much of this list. A decade or 2 from now, we will see obesity treated as we do every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers – with patient-centered care free from judgment and blame, and with a myriad of therapeutic options that physicians objectively, not subjectively, inform and prescribe to their patients.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Are there medical conditions other than obesity where physicians, if even inadvertently, regularly sabotage their patients’ efforts at managing them? Because for patients with obesity, their physicians, sometimes even before they walk into the examining room to meet them, do and say things that may quash their weight loss efforts.

No doubt this list will be nonexhaustive, but here are what I see as the top 10 ways doctors sabotage their patients’ weight loss journeys.

• 1. Having an office that is anxiety provoking, exclusionary, and/or fat phobic for people with obesity, which in turn may remove trust and preclude conversation. Examples of this would be offices without chairs in the waiting room that are suitable for people with obesity; with reading materials such as glossy magazines like Men’s Health and Shape, glorifying unhealthy dieting and body ideals; or where the scale is in a nonprivate area or has a very narrow platform, or maxes out at a weight lower than many patients’.
• 2. Not taking an actual history. Meaning, physicians regularly launch into a “you should really lose weight” speech without exploring a patient’s history of weight loss and social determinants of health. In some cases, that patient may have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, and then this discussion needs to be approached carefully with those facts underwriting its tenor and direction. In other cases, patients’ social determinants of health would make intentional behavior change efforts in the name of weight management an impossible luxury. And sometimes that same patient may in fact be maintaining a clinically meaningful weight loss from their peak weight already. In all cases, not speaking with your patients and instead speaking at your patients will not increase their likelihood to trust or follow or seek your advice.
• 3. Pushing useless diet advice. The most common and most useless are some variation on needing to just eat less and move more. That’s about as useful as telling someone that making money requires them to buy low and sell high. Or telling someone with depression that they should just cheer up and look at the bright side of things.
• 4. Pushing specific diet advice (intermittent fasting, keto, low carb, vegan, low fat, whatever) as if it’s the only way or the best way to lose weight. The research is clear: There is no one best dietary approach, and one person’s best diet is another person’s worst. Yet, some clinicians are themselves diet zealots and preach one diet over all others. Of course, many of their patients may well have already tried that approach, while others won’t enjoy it, and so promoting it above all others will fail a great many people.
• 5. Refusing to prescribe medications to patients who meet the clinical criteria for use, especially now that there are truly effective and useful medications. Do these same clinicians refuse to prescribe antihypertensives or oral hypoglycemics to patients whose blood pressures or blood sugars are risking their health? Related would be those clinicians who don’t bother to learn enough about pharmaceutical options for obesity to feel comfortable prescribing them. This, despite the fact that statistically, well over 30% of their patients have obesity, and polls suggest that at least half of those embark on weight loss efforts annually. If a patient meets clinical criteria for a medication’s approved indication and a doctor won’t prescribe it because of their personal beliefs, in my opinion that’s grounds for a regulatory complaint.
• 6. Fearmongering around medications regarding adverse or unknown effects. The media’s coverage of new antiobesity medications is alarmist, to say the least, and for reasons I can’t fathom, given how well tolerated these medications are when dose titration is slow, monitored, and adjusted appropriately. Many physicians are not only buying into media narratives but are also spreading them.
• 7. Stopping medications for obesity when weight is lost. Do you also stop blood pressure medications when they normalize a patient’s blood pressure? Chronic conditions require ongoing long-term treatment. And yet I hear about this in my practice regularly.
• 8. Prescribing medications that cause weight gain rather than alternatives that don’t, or without discussion of same, or without the concomitant prescription of medication to counter it. From atypical antipsychotics to antidepressants to certain antiseizure medications to some blood pressure medications, there are those that have been shown to lead to, at times, dramatic weight gain. Yet, physicians will still regularly prescribe them to patients with obesity without first trying patients on available alternatives that don’t lead to weight gain, or without at least monitoring and then considering the prescription of an antiobesity medication to try to mitigate iatrogenic gain.
• 9. Setting ridiculous and unrealistic weight loss goals with patients. Without medication, the average person may lose 10% of their weight with purely behavioral efforts, 15%-20% with the addition of medications to those behavioral efforts, and 30% with the addition of bariatric surgery to their behavioral efforts. So why do so many physicians suggest goals that greatly exceed those averages? Imagine being committed to learning to run and having your running coach tell you at your training outset that your goal is to run a marathon within a Boston Marathon qualifying time. The goal should be whatever weight a person reaches living the healthiest life that they can honestly enjoy, not the Boston Marathon of weight loss.
• 10. Not discussing all options with all patients. Yes, food and fitness levers can affect weight, but that doesn’t mean that patients who meet the medical criteria for antiobesity medication or bariatric surgery shouldn’t be informed of their options. Our job as physicians is to fully inform our patients about the risks and benefits of all treatment options and then to support our patients’ decisions as to what option they want to pursue (including none, by the way). Our job is not to exclude discussion of proven and available options because our weight biases see us personally not believing in them – or worse, thinking that patients haven’t tried food and fitness umpteen times before, and that we require them to fail those efforts yet again before we stop gatekeeping their access to effective adjunctive therapeutic interventions.

Until recently, underwriting weight bias in medicine has been the dearth of effective treatments which in turn probably contributed to the overall lack of education for physicians in obesity management despite its extremely high prevalence. The times, though, are definitely a-changin’. Consequent to these new generations of medications rapidly coming online, by necessity we will see improvements in medical education around obesity management. Meanwhile, their efficacy will help dispel the bias that underlies much of this list. A decade or 2 from now, we will see obesity treated as we do every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers – with patient-centered care free from judgment and blame, and with a myriad of therapeutic options that physicians objectively, not subjectively, inform and prescribe to their patients.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Are there medical conditions other than obesity where physicians, if even inadvertently, regularly sabotage their patients’ efforts at managing them? Because for patients with obesity, their physicians, sometimes even before they walk into the examining room to meet them, do and say things that may quash their weight loss efforts.

No doubt this list will be nonexhaustive, but here are what I see as the top 10 ways doctors sabotage their patients’ weight loss journeys.

• 1. Having an office that is anxiety provoking, exclusionary, and/or fat phobic for people with obesity, which in turn may remove trust and preclude conversation. Examples of this would be offices without chairs in the waiting room that are suitable for people with obesity; with reading materials such as glossy magazines like Men’s Health and Shape, glorifying unhealthy dieting and body ideals; or where the scale is in a nonprivate area or has a very narrow platform, or maxes out at a weight lower than many patients’.
• 2. Not taking an actual history. Meaning, physicians regularly launch into a “you should really lose weight” speech without exploring a patient’s history of weight loss and social determinants of health. In some cases, that patient may have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, and then this discussion needs to be approached carefully with those facts underwriting its tenor and direction. In other cases, patients’ social determinants of health would make intentional behavior change efforts in the name of weight management an impossible luxury. And sometimes that same patient may in fact be maintaining a clinically meaningful weight loss from their peak weight already. In all cases, not speaking with your patients and instead speaking at your patients will not increase their likelihood to trust or follow or seek your advice.
• 3. Pushing useless diet advice. The most common and most useless are some variation on needing to just eat less and move more. That’s about as useful as telling someone that making money requires them to buy low and sell high. Or telling someone with depression that they should just cheer up and look at the bright side of things.
• 4. Pushing specific diet advice (intermittent fasting, keto, low carb, vegan, low fat, whatever) as if it’s the only way or the best way to lose weight. The research is clear: There is no one best dietary approach, and one person’s best diet is another person’s worst. Yet, some clinicians are themselves diet zealots and preach one diet over all others. Of course, many of their patients may well have already tried that approach, while others won’t enjoy it, and so promoting it above all others will fail a great many people.
• 5. Refusing to prescribe medications to patients who meet the clinical criteria for use, especially now that there are truly effective and useful medications. Do these same clinicians refuse to prescribe antihypertensives or oral hypoglycemics to patients whose blood pressures or blood sugars are risking their health? Related would be those clinicians who don’t bother to learn enough about pharmaceutical options for obesity to feel comfortable prescribing them. This, despite the fact that statistically, well over 30% of their patients have obesity, and polls suggest that at least half of those embark on weight loss efforts annually. If a patient meets clinical criteria for a medication’s approved indication and a doctor won’t prescribe it because of their personal beliefs, in my opinion that’s grounds for a regulatory complaint.
• 6. Fearmongering around medications regarding adverse or unknown effects. The media’s coverage of new antiobesity medications is alarmist, to say the least, and for reasons I can’t fathom, given how well tolerated these medications are when dose titration is slow, monitored, and adjusted appropriately. Many physicians are not only buying into media narratives but are also spreading them.
• 7. Stopping medications for obesity when weight is lost. Do you also stop blood pressure medications when they normalize a patient’s blood pressure? Chronic conditions require ongoing long-term treatment. And yet I hear about this in my practice regularly.
• 8. Prescribing medications that cause weight gain rather than alternatives that don’t, or without discussion of same, or without the concomitant prescription of medication to counter it. From atypical antipsychotics to antidepressants to certain antiseizure medications to some blood pressure medications, there are those that have been shown to lead to, at times, dramatic weight gain. Yet, physicians will still regularly prescribe them to patients with obesity without first trying patients on available alternatives that don’t lead to weight gain, or without at least monitoring and then considering the prescription of an antiobesity medication to try to mitigate iatrogenic gain.
• 9. Setting ridiculous and unrealistic weight loss goals with patients. Without medication, the average person may lose 10% of their weight with purely behavioral efforts, 15%-20% with the addition of medications to those behavioral efforts, and 30% with the addition of bariatric surgery to their behavioral efforts. So why do so many physicians suggest goals that greatly exceed those averages? Imagine being committed to learning to run and having your running coach tell you at your training outset that your goal is to run a marathon within a Boston Marathon qualifying time. The goal should be whatever weight a person reaches living the healthiest life that they can honestly enjoy, not the Boston Marathon of weight loss.
• 10. Not discussing all options with all patients. Yes, food and fitness levers can affect weight, but that doesn’t mean that patients who meet the medical criteria for antiobesity medication or bariatric surgery shouldn’t be informed of their options. Our job as physicians is to fully inform our patients about the risks and benefits of all treatment options and then to support our patients’ decisions as to what option they want to pursue (including none, by the way). Our job is not to exclude discussion of proven and available options because our weight biases see us personally not believing in them – or worse, thinking that patients haven’t tried food and fitness umpteen times before, and that we require them to fail those efforts yet again before we stop gatekeeping their access to effective adjunctive therapeutic interventions.

Until recently, underwriting weight bias in medicine has been the dearth of effective treatments which in turn probably contributed to the overall lack of education for physicians in obesity management despite its extremely high prevalence. The times, though, are definitely a-changin’. Consequent to these new generations of medications rapidly coming online, by necessity we will see improvements in medical education around obesity management. Meanwhile, their efficacy will help dispel the bias that underlies much of this list. A decade or 2 from now, we will see obesity treated as we do every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers – with patient-centered care free from judgment and blame, and with a myriad of therapeutic options that physicians objectively, not subjectively, inform and prescribe to their patients.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with high-risk serrated polyps (with or without high-risk adenomas) have a high risk for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) within a median of 3 years after the baseline colonoscopy for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screen, a study suggests.

,

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 253,833 colonoscopies performed after FIT-positive screens in a Dutch CRC screening program.
• A Cox regression analysis assessed the association between the findings at baseline colonoscopy and metachronous CRC risk.
• Investigators categorized patients into subgroups based on removed polyp subtypes and used groups without polyps as a reference.
• High-risk subgroups included those with high-risk serrated polyps, which were defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenomas, as well as high-risk adenomas, which were defined as an adenoma of at least 10 mm or containing high-grade dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 504 metachronous CRCs were identified.
• Individuals with high-risk serrated polyps without co-occurring high-risk adenomas had an increased risk for metachronous CRC (hazard ratio, 1.70).
• The highest risk was seen in individuals with both high-risk serrated polyps and high-risk adenomas (HR, 2.0), as well as those with villous adenomas (HR, 2.07).
• Individuals with only high-risk adenomas did not show a significantly increased risk for metachronous CRC (HR, 1.22).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that individuals with high-risk serrated polyps might comprise the higher CRC risk in the first years after colonoscopy. Results of this study could contribute to establish more restrictive polyp surveillance guidelines in a quality-assured setting,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David E. F. W. M. van Toledo, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers. It was published online July 5, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine. The study received no funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively short median follow-up time of 3 years may limit the assessment of long-term metachronous CRC risk. The study population consisted of FIT-positive individuals, which may introduce selection bias. The incidence of metachronous CRC in the study was lower compared with other studies, potentially affecting the risk estimates. The limited number of cases in some subgroups may result in unreliable risk estimations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. van Toledo declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults with high-risk serrated polyps (with or without high-risk adenomas) have a high risk for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) within a median of 3 years after the baseline colonoscopy for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screen, a study suggests.

,

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 253,833 colonoscopies performed after FIT-positive screens in a Dutch CRC screening program.
• A Cox regression analysis assessed the association between the findings at baseline colonoscopy and metachronous CRC risk.
• Investigators categorized patients into subgroups based on removed polyp subtypes and used groups without polyps as a reference.
• High-risk subgroups included those with high-risk serrated polyps, which were defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenomas, as well as high-risk adenomas, which were defined as an adenoma of at least 10 mm or containing high-grade dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 504 metachronous CRCs were identified.
• Individuals with high-risk serrated polyps without co-occurring high-risk adenomas had an increased risk for metachronous CRC (hazard ratio, 1.70).
• The highest risk was seen in individuals with both high-risk serrated polyps and high-risk adenomas (HR, 2.0), as well as those with villous adenomas (HR, 2.07).
• Individuals with only high-risk adenomas did not show a significantly increased risk for metachronous CRC (HR, 1.22).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that individuals with high-risk serrated polyps might comprise the higher CRC risk in the first years after colonoscopy. Results of this study could contribute to establish more restrictive polyp surveillance guidelines in a quality-assured setting,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David E. F. W. M. van Toledo, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers. It was published online July 5, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine. The study received no funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively short median follow-up time of 3 years may limit the assessment of long-term metachronous CRC risk. The study population consisted of FIT-positive individuals, which may introduce selection bias. The incidence of metachronous CRC in the study was lower compared with other studies, potentially affecting the risk estimates. The limited number of cases in some subgroups may result in unreliable risk estimations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. van Toledo declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults with high-risk serrated polyps (with or without high-risk adenomas) have a high risk for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) within a median of 3 years after the baseline colonoscopy for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screen, a study suggests.

,

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 253,833 colonoscopies performed after FIT-positive screens in a Dutch CRC screening program.
• A Cox regression analysis assessed the association between the findings at baseline colonoscopy and metachronous CRC risk.
• Investigators categorized patients into subgroups based on removed polyp subtypes and used groups without polyps as a reference.
• High-risk subgroups included those with high-risk serrated polyps, which were defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenomas, as well as high-risk adenomas, which were defined as an adenoma of at least 10 mm or containing high-grade dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 504 metachronous CRCs were identified.
• Individuals with high-risk serrated polyps without co-occurring high-risk adenomas had an increased risk for metachronous CRC (hazard ratio, 1.70).
• The highest risk was seen in individuals with both high-risk serrated polyps and high-risk adenomas (HR, 2.0), as well as those with villous adenomas (HR, 2.07).
• Individuals with only high-risk adenomas did not show a significantly increased risk for metachronous CRC (HR, 1.22).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that individuals with high-risk serrated polyps might comprise the higher CRC risk in the first years after colonoscopy. Results of this study could contribute to establish more restrictive polyp surveillance guidelines in a quality-assured setting,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David E. F. W. M. van Toledo, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers. It was published online July 5, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine. The study received no funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively short median follow-up time of 3 years may limit the assessment of long-term metachronous CRC risk. The study population consisted of FIT-positive individuals, which may introduce selection bias. The incidence of metachronous CRC in the study was lower compared with other studies, potentially affecting the risk estimates. The limited number of cases in some subgroups may result in unreliable risk estimations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. van Toledo declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

We are all searching for happiness. But how do we achieve it? What are its greatest determinants?

The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the most comprehensive study ever conducted, as it followed its participants for their entire adult lives. The study was started in Boston in 1938 and has already covered three generations: grandparents, parents, and children, who are now considered “baby boomers.” It analyzed more than 2,000 people throughout 85 years of longitudinal study.

In January, Robert J. Waldinger, MD, the current director of this incredible study, published the book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, coauthored with the study’s associate director, Marc Schulz, PhD.

By following this large population for more than 8 decades, the study uncovered the factors most correlated with well-being and happiness. Here, I have summarized some of the authors’ main concepts.
 

Most important factors

The study’s happiest participants had two major factors in common throughout its 85 years: Taking care of their health and building loving relationships with others.

It seems obvious that being in good health is essential to live well. However, to some surprise, researchers determined that good relationships were the most significant predictor of health and happiness during aging. Other authors have confirmed this finding, and research has sought to analyze the physiological mechanisms associated with this benefit.
 

Professional success insufficient

Professional success on its own does not guarantee happiness, even though it may be gratifying. The study revealed that those who were happiest were not isolated. In fact, the happiest people valued and fostered relationships. Levels of education and cultural awareness, which tend to be higher among those with higher salaries, were also important factors for adopting healthy habits (promoted more often as of the 1960s) and for better access to health care.

Social skills

Loneliness is increasingly common and creates challenges when dealing with stressful situations. It is essential to have someone with whom we can vent. Therefore, Dr. Waldinger recommends assessing how to foster, strengthen, and broaden relationships. He calls this maintaining social connections and, just as with physical fitness, it also requires constant practice. Friendships and relationships need regular commitment to keep them from fizzling out. A simple telephone call can help. Participating in activities that bring joy and encourage camaraderie, such as sports, hobbies, and volunteer work, may broaden the relationship network.

Happiness not constant

Social media almost always shows the positive side of people’s lives and suggests that everyone lives worry-free. However, the truth is that no one’s life is free of difficulties and challenges. Social skills contribute to resilience.

It is never too late for a turnaround and for people to change their lives through new relationships and experiences. Those who think they know everything about life are very mistaken. The study showed that good things happened to those who had given up on changing their situation, and good news appeared when they least expected it.

This study highlights the importance of having social skills and always cultivating our relationships to help us become healthier, overcome challenging moments, and achieve the happiness that we all desire.

We finally have robust evidence-based data to use when speaking on happiness.

Dr. Wajngarten is professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We are all searching for happiness. But how do we achieve it? What are its greatest determinants?

The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the most comprehensive study ever conducted, as it followed its participants for their entire adult lives. The study was started in Boston in 1938 and has already covered three generations: grandparents, parents, and children, who are now considered “baby boomers.” It analyzed more than 2,000 people throughout 85 years of longitudinal study.

In January, Robert J. Waldinger, MD, the current director of this incredible study, published the book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, coauthored with the study’s associate director, Marc Schulz, PhD.

By following this large population for more than 8 decades, the study uncovered the factors most correlated with well-being and happiness. Here, I have summarized some of the authors’ main concepts.
 

Most important factors

The study’s happiest participants had two major factors in common throughout its 85 years: Taking care of their health and building loving relationships with others.

It seems obvious that being in good health is essential to live well. However, to some surprise, researchers determined that good relationships were the most significant predictor of health and happiness during aging. Other authors have confirmed this finding, and research has sought to analyze the physiological mechanisms associated with this benefit.
 

Professional success insufficient

Professional success on its own does not guarantee happiness, even though it may be gratifying. The study revealed that those who were happiest were not isolated. In fact, the happiest people valued and fostered relationships. Levels of education and cultural awareness, which tend to be higher among those with higher salaries, were also important factors for adopting healthy habits (promoted more often as of the 1960s) and for better access to health care.

Social skills

Loneliness is increasingly common and creates challenges when dealing with stressful situations. It is essential to have someone with whom we can vent. Therefore, Dr. Waldinger recommends assessing how to foster, strengthen, and broaden relationships. He calls this maintaining social connections and, just as with physical fitness, it also requires constant practice. Friendships and relationships need regular commitment to keep them from fizzling out. A simple telephone call can help. Participating in activities that bring joy and encourage camaraderie, such as sports, hobbies, and volunteer work, may broaden the relationship network.

Happiness not constant

Social media almost always shows the positive side of people’s lives and suggests that everyone lives worry-free. However, the truth is that no one’s life is free of difficulties and challenges. Social skills contribute to resilience.

It is never too late for a turnaround and for people to change their lives through new relationships and experiences. Those who think they know everything about life are very mistaken. The study showed that good things happened to those who had given up on changing their situation, and good news appeared when they least expected it.

This study highlights the importance of having social skills and always cultivating our relationships to help us become healthier, overcome challenging moments, and achieve the happiness that we all desire.

We finally have robust evidence-based data to use when speaking on happiness.

Dr. Wajngarten is professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We are all searching for happiness. But how do we achieve it? What are its greatest determinants?

The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the most comprehensive study ever conducted, as it followed its participants for their entire adult lives. The study was started in Boston in 1938 and has already covered three generations: grandparents, parents, and children, who are now considered “baby boomers.” It analyzed more than 2,000 people throughout 85 years of longitudinal study.

In January, Robert J. Waldinger, MD, the current director of this incredible study, published the book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, coauthored with the study’s associate director, Marc Schulz, PhD.

By following this large population for more than 8 decades, the study uncovered the factors most correlated with well-being and happiness. Here, I have summarized some of the authors’ main concepts.
 

Most important factors

The study’s happiest participants had two major factors in common throughout its 85 years: Taking care of their health and building loving relationships with others.

It seems obvious that being in good health is essential to live well. However, to some surprise, researchers determined that good relationships were the most significant predictor of health and happiness during aging. Other authors have confirmed this finding, and research has sought to analyze the physiological mechanisms associated with this benefit.
 

Professional success insufficient

Professional success on its own does not guarantee happiness, even though it may be gratifying. The study revealed that those who were happiest were not isolated. In fact, the happiest people valued and fostered relationships. Levels of education and cultural awareness, which tend to be higher among those with higher salaries, were also important factors for adopting healthy habits (promoted more often as of the 1960s) and for better access to health care.

Social skills

Loneliness is increasingly common and creates challenges when dealing with stressful situations. It is essential to have someone with whom we can vent. Therefore, Dr. Waldinger recommends assessing how to foster, strengthen, and broaden relationships. He calls this maintaining social connections and, just as with physical fitness, it also requires constant practice. Friendships and relationships need regular commitment to keep them from fizzling out. A simple telephone call can help. Participating in activities that bring joy and encourage camaraderie, such as sports, hobbies, and volunteer work, may broaden the relationship network.

Happiness not constant

Social media almost always shows the positive side of people’s lives and suggests that everyone lives worry-free. However, the truth is that no one’s life is free of difficulties and challenges. Social skills contribute to resilience.

It is never too late for a turnaround and for people to change their lives through new relationships and experiences. Those who think they know everything about life are very mistaken. The study showed that good things happened to those who had given up on changing their situation, and good news appeared when they least expected it.

This study highlights the importance of having social skills and always cultivating our relationships to help us become healthier, overcome challenging moments, and achieve the happiness that we all desire.

We finally have robust evidence-based data to use when speaking on happiness.

Dr. Wajngarten is professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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