News

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

Dysphagia is one of the most common side effects of radiation for head and neck cancer and can be so bad that patients require a permanent gastrostomy tube for feeding.

A team of British investigators are now reporting a new strategy to help lessen this problem.

In the trial, the approach – dubbed dysphagia-optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) – reduced incidental radiation to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles responsible for swallowing during IMRT for pharyngeal cancer. Patients randomized to DO-IMRT reported significant improvements in swallowing at 1 year, compared with those receiving standard IMRT, at no cost to oncologic outcomes.

Overall, the findings show “DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function, compared with standard IMRT,” said investigators led by Christopher Nutting, MD, PhD, a head and neck cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. “DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care.”

The team reported the results of their phase 3 trial in The Lancet Oncology.

Swallowing issues affect most patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy but strategies to mitigate this long-term adverse effect remain limited.

Dr. Nutting and colleagues wanted to assess whether a novel approach to radiation therapy could reduce the swallowing problems patients often encounter.

In the trial, 112 subjects with T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal (90%) or hypopharyngeal cancer (10%) were randomized to standard IMRT or DO-IMRT. Patients received care at 22 radiation therapy centers in Ireland and the UK from 2016 to 2018.

Patients got radiation in 30 fractions over 6 weeks; most also had chemotherapy. The standard IMRT group received 65 Gy to their primary and nodal tumors and 54 Gy to other pharyngeal and nodal areas. In the DO-IMRT group, radiation doses to pharyngeal constrictor muscles lying outside of the tumor target area were limited to 50 Gy.

At 1 year, 56 patients randomized to DO-IMRT scored, on average, 7.2 points higher than the 56 patients randomized to standard IMRT – 77.7 points vs. 70.6 (P = .037) – on the 100-point MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). MDADI is a validated scale for tracking radiation-induced dysphagia, with higher scores indicating better swallowing function.

The difference grew to 9.8 points when adjusted for chemotherapy use and tumor location and stage.

DO-IMRT patients were also more likely to report eating their normal diet and dining in public. Speech and language therapists who, like patients, were blinded to treatment allocation, reported better outcomes among patients receiving DO-IMRT as well.

At just over 3 years, oncologic outcomes were essentially equivalent in both groups. Two local recurrences occurred in both arms; distant metastatic recurrences occurred in three patients in the DO-IMRT group and two in the standard IMRT group.

The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (16% with DO-IMRT vs. 13% with standard IMRT), dry mouth (5% vs. 15%), and dysphagia (5% vs. 15%).

Taken together, the findings indicate that reducing doses to the pharyngeal constrictor muscle translates to “a meaningful benefit for patients” in terms of improved swallowing function, the investigators said.

In an accompanying editorial, Sandra Nuyts, MD, PhD, noted, however, that the trial failed to meet the predefined threshold for clinical significance, a 10-point difference in MDADI scores.

Still, “several other patient-reported and physician-reported secondary endpoints favored DO-IMRT,” explained Dr. Nuyts, a radiation oncologist at the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium. Considered alongside positive reports from smaller, nonrandomized studies, “there is now compelling evidence that the risk of dysphagia after head and neck radiotherapy can be reduced with this technology, without increasing the risk of local recurrences.”

The study team and Dr. Nuyts both called for further refinement of the technique, particularly figuring out what specific sections of the constrictor muscles need to be spared to optimize outcomes.

For now, there is a limit on “how much organ sparing can be achieved with the current DO-IMRT technique” because “use of even narrower margins” around the tumor runs the risk of not treating it adequately, investigators said.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nutting reports stock options in Advanced Oncotherapy. Another investigator reports institutional grants from Varian, AstraZeneca, Roche, and other companies. Dr. Nuyts reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia is one of the most common side effects of radiation for head and neck cancer and can be so bad that patients require a permanent gastrostomy tube for feeding.

A team of British investigators are now reporting a new strategy to help lessen this problem.

In the trial, the approach – dubbed dysphagia-optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) – reduced incidental radiation to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles responsible for swallowing during IMRT for pharyngeal cancer. Patients randomized to DO-IMRT reported significant improvements in swallowing at 1 year, compared with those receiving standard IMRT, at no cost to oncologic outcomes.

Overall, the findings show “DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function, compared with standard IMRT,” said investigators led by Christopher Nutting, MD, PhD, a head and neck cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. “DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care.”

The team reported the results of their phase 3 trial in The Lancet Oncology.

Swallowing issues affect most patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy but strategies to mitigate this long-term adverse effect remain limited.

Dr. Nutting and colleagues wanted to assess whether a novel approach to radiation therapy could reduce the swallowing problems patients often encounter.

In the trial, 112 subjects with T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal (90%) or hypopharyngeal cancer (10%) were randomized to standard IMRT or DO-IMRT. Patients received care at 22 radiation therapy centers in Ireland and the UK from 2016 to 2018.

Patients got radiation in 30 fractions over 6 weeks; most also had chemotherapy. The standard IMRT group received 65 Gy to their primary and nodal tumors and 54 Gy to other pharyngeal and nodal areas. In the DO-IMRT group, radiation doses to pharyngeal constrictor muscles lying outside of the tumor target area were limited to 50 Gy.

At 1 year, 56 patients randomized to DO-IMRT scored, on average, 7.2 points higher than the 56 patients randomized to standard IMRT – 77.7 points vs. 70.6 (P = .037) – on the 100-point MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). MDADI is a validated scale for tracking radiation-induced dysphagia, with higher scores indicating better swallowing function.

The difference grew to 9.8 points when adjusted for chemotherapy use and tumor location and stage.

DO-IMRT patients were also more likely to report eating their normal diet and dining in public. Speech and language therapists who, like patients, were blinded to treatment allocation, reported better outcomes among patients receiving DO-IMRT as well.

At just over 3 years, oncologic outcomes were essentially equivalent in both groups. Two local recurrences occurred in both arms; distant metastatic recurrences occurred in three patients in the DO-IMRT group and two in the standard IMRT group.

The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (16% with DO-IMRT vs. 13% with standard IMRT), dry mouth (5% vs. 15%), and dysphagia (5% vs. 15%).

Taken together, the findings indicate that reducing doses to the pharyngeal constrictor muscle translates to “a meaningful benefit for patients” in terms of improved swallowing function, the investigators said.

In an accompanying editorial, Sandra Nuyts, MD, PhD, noted, however, that the trial failed to meet the predefined threshold for clinical significance, a 10-point difference in MDADI scores.

Still, “several other patient-reported and physician-reported secondary endpoints favored DO-IMRT,” explained Dr. Nuyts, a radiation oncologist at the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium. Considered alongside positive reports from smaller, nonrandomized studies, “there is now compelling evidence that the risk of dysphagia after head and neck radiotherapy can be reduced with this technology, without increasing the risk of local recurrences.”

The study team and Dr. Nuyts both called for further refinement of the technique, particularly figuring out what specific sections of the constrictor muscles need to be spared to optimize outcomes.

For now, there is a limit on “how much organ sparing can be achieved with the current DO-IMRT technique” because “use of even narrower margins” around the tumor runs the risk of not treating it adequately, investigators said.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nutting reports stock options in Advanced Oncotherapy. Another investigator reports institutional grants from Varian, AstraZeneca, Roche, and other companies. Dr. Nuyts reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia is one of the most common side effects of radiation for head and neck cancer and can be so bad that patients require a permanent gastrostomy tube for feeding.

A team of British investigators are now reporting a new strategy to help lessen this problem.

In the trial, the approach – dubbed dysphagia-optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) – reduced incidental radiation to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles responsible for swallowing during IMRT for pharyngeal cancer. Patients randomized to DO-IMRT reported significant improvements in swallowing at 1 year, compared with those receiving standard IMRT, at no cost to oncologic outcomes.

Overall, the findings show “DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function, compared with standard IMRT,” said investigators led by Christopher Nutting, MD, PhD, a head and neck cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. “DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care.”

The team reported the results of their phase 3 trial in The Lancet Oncology.

Swallowing issues affect most patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy but strategies to mitigate this long-term adverse effect remain limited.

Dr. Nutting and colleagues wanted to assess whether a novel approach to radiation therapy could reduce the swallowing problems patients often encounter.

In the trial, 112 subjects with T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal (90%) or hypopharyngeal cancer (10%) were randomized to standard IMRT or DO-IMRT. Patients received care at 22 radiation therapy centers in Ireland and the UK from 2016 to 2018.

Patients got radiation in 30 fractions over 6 weeks; most also had chemotherapy. The standard IMRT group received 65 Gy to their primary and nodal tumors and 54 Gy to other pharyngeal and nodal areas. In the DO-IMRT group, radiation doses to pharyngeal constrictor muscles lying outside of the tumor target area were limited to 50 Gy.

At 1 year, 56 patients randomized to DO-IMRT scored, on average, 7.2 points higher than the 56 patients randomized to standard IMRT – 77.7 points vs. 70.6 (P = .037) – on the 100-point MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). MDADI is a validated scale for tracking radiation-induced dysphagia, with higher scores indicating better swallowing function.

The difference grew to 9.8 points when adjusted for chemotherapy use and tumor location and stage.

DO-IMRT patients were also more likely to report eating their normal diet and dining in public. Speech and language therapists who, like patients, were blinded to treatment allocation, reported better outcomes among patients receiving DO-IMRT as well.

At just over 3 years, oncologic outcomes were essentially equivalent in both groups. Two local recurrences occurred in both arms; distant metastatic recurrences occurred in three patients in the DO-IMRT group and two in the standard IMRT group.

The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (16% with DO-IMRT vs. 13% with standard IMRT), dry mouth (5% vs. 15%), and dysphagia (5% vs. 15%).

Taken together, the findings indicate that reducing doses to the pharyngeal constrictor muscle translates to “a meaningful benefit for patients” in terms of improved swallowing function, the investigators said.

In an accompanying editorial, Sandra Nuyts, MD, PhD, noted, however, that the trial failed to meet the predefined threshold for clinical significance, a 10-point difference in MDADI scores.

Still, “several other patient-reported and physician-reported secondary endpoints favored DO-IMRT,” explained Dr. Nuyts, a radiation oncologist at the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium. Considered alongside positive reports from smaller, nonrandomized studies, “there is now compelling evidence that the risk of dysphagia after head and neck radiotherapy can be reduced with this technology, without increasing the risk of local recurrences.”

The study team and Dr. Nuyts both called for further refinement of the technique, particularly figuring out what specific sections of the constrictor muscles need to be spared to optimize outcomes.

For now, there is a limit on “how much organ sparing can be achieved with the current DO-IMRT technique” because “use of even narrower margins” around the tumor runs the risk of not treating it adequately, investigators said.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nutting reports stock options in Advanced Oncotherapy. Another investigator reports institutional grants from Varian, AstraZeneca, Roche, and other companies. Dr. Nuyts reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

Regular consumption of fish and other foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids (FA) won’t raise an individual’s risk for developing atrial fibrillation (AFib), suggests a meta-analysis of population-based studies.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

The finding may alleviate recent concerns about higher-dose omega-3 FA supplement intake in clinical-trial patients at elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk, researchers say.

Indeed, across the 17 cohort studies in the meta-analysis, risk for incident AFib was unaffected by elevated circulating and adipose tissue levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from dietary intake. Moreover, the risk appeared to drop significantly with such levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and EPA plus DHA.

The signals of AFib risk associated with high-dose omega-3 FA in supplements or prescription form in some clinical trials “may not necessarily be generalizable to lower-dose habitual dietary omega-3 intakes,” concludes the study’s report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Other recent research suggests that any elevated AFib risk from omega-3 FA intake is dose-related and may be associated with omega-3 FA supplement or medication intake in high doses, such as 4 g/day.

“Coupled with the more consistent benefits of these fatty acids in the prevention of adverse coronary events, our study suggests that current dietary guidelines recommending fish/omega-3 fatty acid consumption should be maintained,” conclude the authors of the report, led by Frank Qian, MD, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The current study is “important in showing that physiologic levels of omega-3s that would accumulate through diet don’t seem to increase the risk of arrhythmia,” preventive cardiologist Sean Heffron, MD, NYU Langone Health and Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“It also lends credence to the fact that the increased risk is specific to the high dose supplementation, because that’s the only instance in which we’ve seen increased atrial fibrillation in association with omega-3s,” said Dr. Heffron, who wasn’t involved in the meta-analysis.

An accompanying editorial agrees. “Based on present evidence, moderate dietary intake of fish and seafood is unlikely to achieve sufficiently high levels of omega-3-FAs in blood or tissue that would result in increased AFib risk as observed in clinical trials of fish oil supplements and high-dose prescriptions,” write Christie Ballantyne, MD, and Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Therefore, they conclude, “fish should continue to be an important part of the menu of a heart-healthy diet.”

The meta-analysis comprised 54,799 participants from 21 countries worldwide in 17 prospective cohort studies that yielded data on incident AFib, in which there were 7,720 cases of the arrhythmia over a median follow-up of 13 years. It looked at associations between such cases and levels of omega-3 FA in blood and adipose tissue samples.

In multivariable analysis, EPA levels were not associated with incident AFib, with a hazard ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.05) per interquintile range, which the report describes as the difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles.

In contrast, levels of DPA, DHA, and EPA plus DHA were all associated with reduced AFib incidence at interquintile-range HRs of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for DPA, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) for DHA and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99) for EPA and DHA combined.

“We found little evidence that the associations significantly varied by age, sex, or global region, or across the various lipid compartments,” the report states. “Moreover, the relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and AFib did not significantly differ among individuals at higher CV risk.”

The authors observe that the prevalence of omega-3 FA supplement use in the cohorts was very low, suggesting that the omega-3 FA biomarker levels largely reflected habitual dietary intake.

Most of the meta-analysis population were free of CV disease or at relatively low CV risk, they write, and “it is conceivable that the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on atrial arrhythmias may differ in those with existing CV disease versus without.”

However, they note, in a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants mirroring the REDUCE-IT cohort of people with established CV disease or at elevated CV risk, no association with incident AFib was observed for EPA and inverse associations emerged for DPA, DHA, and EPA plus DHA.

In their editorial, Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Jia say the meta-analysis “represents the largest epidemiological study assessing laboratory-measured omega-3 fatty acid concentrations and AFib risk in the general population.”

But significant heterogeneity across the studies and their populations is a major limitation of the analysis, they write, and made for differences in protocols, sample preparation, outcomes ascertainment, follow-up time, and other variables.

“Despite a rigorous approach to harmonize the data across cohorts and adjusting for multiple confounders,” note Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Jia, “observational studies always have potential for residual confounders.”

The findings support fish consumption as heart-healthy, they write, but “clinicians should be aware of and discuss with patients the risks versus benefits when prescribing high-dose omega-3 FA therapies.”

The Fatty Acid Research Institute retrospectively provided a small honorarium to a subset of the analysts who participated in this study, but it had no role in its design, analysis, manuscript writing, or decision to submit for publication, the report states. Dr. Ballantyne received grant/research support through his institution from Akcea, Amgen, Arrowhead, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron, as well as consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr. Heffron and Dr. Jia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular consumption of fish and other foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids (FA) won’t raise an individual’s risk for developing atrial fibrillation (AFib), suggests a meta-analysis of population-based studies.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

The finding may alleviate recent concerns about higher-dose omega-3 FA supplement intake in clinical-trial patients at elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk, researchers say.

Indeed, across the 17 cohort studies in the meta-analysis, risk for incident AFib was unaffected by elevated circulating and adipose tissue levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from dietary intake. Moreover, the risk appeared to drop significantly with such levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and EPA plus DHA.

The signals of AFib risk associated with high-dose omega-3 FA in supplements or prescription form in some clinical trials “may not necessarily be generalizable to lower-dose habitual dietary omega-3 intakes,” concludes the study’s report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Other recent research suggests that any elevated AFib risk from omega-3 FA intake is dose-related and may be associated with omega-3 FA supplement or medication intake in high doses, such as 4 g/day.

“Coupled with the more consistent benefits of these fatty acids in the prevention of adverse coronary events, our study suggests that current dietary guidelines recommending fish/omega-3 fatty acid consumption should be maintained,” conclude the authors of the report, led by Frank Qian, MD, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The current study is “important in showing that physiologic levels of omega-3s that would accumulate through diet don’t seem to increase the risk of arrhythmia,” preventive cardiologist Sean Heffron, MD, NYU Langone Health and Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“It also lends credence to the fact that the increased risk is specific to the high dose supplementation, because that’s the only instance in which we’ve seen increased atrial fibrillation in association with omega-3s,” said Dr. Heffron, who wasn’t involved in the meta-analysis.

An accompanying editorial agrees. “Based on present evidence, moderate dietary intake of fish and seafood is unlikely to achieve sufficiently high levels of omega-3-FAs in blood or tissue that would result in increased AFib risk as observed in clinical trials of fish oil supplements and high-dose prescriptions,” write Christie Ballantyne, MD, and Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Therefore, they conclude, “fish should continue to be an important part of the menu of a heart-healthy diet.”

The meta-analysis comprised 54,799 participants from 21 countries worldwide in 17 prospective cohort studies that yielded data on incident AFib, in which there were 7,720 cases of the arrhythmia over a median follow-up of 13 years. It looked at associations between such cases and levels of omega-3 FA in blood and adipose tissue samples.

In multivariable analysis, EPA levels were not associated with incident AFib, with a hazard ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.05) per interquintile range, which the report describes as the difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles.

In contrast, levels of DPA, DHA, and EPA plus DHA were all associated with reduced AFib incidence at interquintile-range HRs of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for DPA, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) for DHA and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99) for EPA and DHA combined.

“We found little evidence that the associations significantly varied by age, sex, or global region, or across the various lipid compartments,” the report states. “Moreover, the relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and AFib did not significantly differ among individuals at higher CV risk.”

The authors observe that the prevalence of omega-3 FA supplement use in the cohorts was very low, suggesting that the omega-3 FA biomarker levels largely reflected habitual dietary intake.

Most of the meta-analysis population were free of CV disease or at relatively low CV risk, they write, and “it is conceivable that the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on atrial arrhythmias may differ in those with existing CV disease versus without.”

However, they note, in a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants mirroring the REDUCE-IT cohort of people with established CV disease or at elevated CV risk, no association with incident AFib was observed for EPA and inverse associations emerged for DPA, DHA, and EPA plus DHA.

In their editorial, Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Jia say the meta-analysis “represents the largest epidemiological study assessing laboratory-measured omega-3 fatty acid concentrations and AFib risk in the general population.”

But significant heterogeneity across the studies and their populations is a major limitation of the analysis, they write, and made for differences in protocols, sample preparation, outcomes ascertainment, follow-up time, and other variables.

“Despite a rigorous approach to harmonize the data across cohorts and adjusting for multiple confounders,” note Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Jia, “observational studies always have potential for residual confounders.”

The findings support fish consumption as heart-healthy, they write, but “clinicians should be aware of and discuss with patients the risks versus benefits when prescribing high-dose omega-3 FA therapies.”

The Fatty Acid Research Institute retrospectively provided a small honorarium to a subset of the analysts who participated in this study, but it had no role in its design, analysis, manuscript writing, or decision to submit for publication, the report states. Dr. Ballantyne received grant/research support through his institution from Akcea, Amgen, Arrowhead, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron, as well as consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr. Heffron and Dr. Jia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular consumption of fish and other foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids (FA) won’t raise an individual’s risk for developing atrial fibrillation (AFib), suggests a meta-analysis of population-based studies.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

The finding may alleviate recent concerns about higher-dose omega-3 FA supplement intake in clinical-trial patients at elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk, researchers say.

Indeed, across the 17 cohort studies in the meta-analysis, risk for incident AFib was unaffected by elevated circulating and adipose tissue levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from dietary intake. Moreover, the risk appeared to drop significantly with such levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and EPA plus DHA.

The signals of AFib risk associated with high-dose omega-3 FA in supplements or prescription form in some clinical trials “may not necessarily be generalizable to lower-dose habitual dietary omega-3 intakes,” concludes the study’s report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Other recent research suggests that any elevated AFib risk from omega-3 FA intake is dose-related and may be associated with omega-3 FA supplement or medication intake in high doses, such as 4 g/day.

“Coupled with the more consistent benefits of these fatty acids in the prevention of adverse coronary events, our study suggests that current dietary guidelines recommending fish/omega-3 fatty acid consumption should be maintained,” conclude the authors of the report, led by Frank Qian, MD, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The current study is “important in showing that physiologic levels of omega-3s that would accumulate through diet don’t seem to increase the risk of arrhythmia,” preventive cardiologist Sean Heffron, MD, NYU Langone Health and Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“It also lends credence to the fact that the increased risk is specific to the high dose supplementation, because that’s the only instance in which we’ve seen increased atrial fibrillation in association with omega-3s,” said Dr. Heffron, who wasn’t involved in the meta-analysis.

An accompanying editorial agrees. “Based on present evidence, moderate dietary intake of fish and seafood is unlikely to achieve sufficiently high levels of omega-3-FAs in blood or tissue that would result in increased AFib risk as observed in clinical trials of fish oil supplements and high-dose prescriptions,” write Christie Ballantyne, MD, and Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Therefore, they conclude, “fish should continue to be an important part of the menu of a heart-healthy diet.”

The meta-analysis comprised 54,799 participants from 21 countries worldwide in 17 prospective cohort studies that yielded data on incident AFib, in which there were 7,720 cases of the arrhythmia over a median follow-up of 13 years. It looked at associations between such cases and levels of omega-3 FA in blood and adipose tissue samples.

In multivariable analysis, EPA levels were not associated with incident AFib, with a hazard ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.05) per interquintile range, which the report describes as the difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles.

In contrast, levels of DPA, DHA, and EPA plus DHA were all associated with reduced AFib incidence at interquintile-range HRs of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for DPA, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) for DHA and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99) for EPA and DHA combined.

“We found little evidence that the associations significantly varied by age, sex, or global region, or across the various lipid compartments,” the report states. “Moreover, the relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and AFib did not significantly differ among individuals at higher CV risk.”

The authors observe that the prevalence of omega-3 FA supplement use in the cohorts was very low, suggesting that the omega-3 FA biomarker levels largely reflected habitual dietary intake.

Most of the meta-analysis population were free of CV disease or at relatively low CV risk, they write, and “it is conceivable that the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on atrial arrhythmias may differ in those with existing CV disease versus without.”

However, they note, in a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants mirroring the REDUCE-IT cohort of people with established CV disease or at elevated CV risk, no association with incident AFib was observed for EPA and inverse associations emerged for DPA, DHA, and EPA plus DHA.

In their editorial, Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Jia say the meta-analysis “represents the largest epidemiological study assessing laboratory-measured omega-3 fatty acid concentrations and AFib risk in the general population.”

But significant heterogeneity across the studies and their populations is a major limitation of the analysis, they write, and made for differences in protocols, sample preparation, outcomes ascertainment, follow-up time, and other variables.

“Despite a rigorous approach to harmonize the data across cohorts and adjusting for multiple confounders,” note Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Jia, “observational studies always have potential for residual confounders.”

The findings support fish consumption as heart-healthy, they write, but “clinicians should be aware of and discuss with patients the risks versus benefits when prescribing high-dose omega-3 FA therapies.”

The Fatty Acid Research Institute retrospectively provided a small honorarium to a subset of the analysts who participated in this study, but it had no role in its design, analysis, manuscript writing, or decision to submit for publication, the report states. Dr. Ballantyne received grant/research support through his institution from Akcea, Amgen, Arrowhead, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron, as well as consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr. Heffron and Dr. Jia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

A version of this article first 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.

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.