The burdens that monthly or every-other-month injections in the eye impose on patients with retinal diseases are well-known to be barriers to care for many people with these conditions. Making treatment less onerous has driven research into new treatments since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ranibizumab (Lucentis) in 2006 as the first anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal diseases.

Those new treatments include combination therapies, novel drug delivery systems, and a host of oral and topical medications to boost gains in visual acuity and extend the intervals between injections or avoid the injections altogether. Several of those investigational therapies are poised to hit meaningful milestones in 2024.
 

Regular Eye Injections: How We Got Here

Ranibizumab originally received approval as a monthly injection. Since then, protocols have evolved to space those injections out to every other month in some, but not all, patients.

New drugs have emerged that require less frequent injections. In 2022, the anti-VEGF and angiopoietin-2 inhibitor faricimab (Vabysmo) was approved for dosing up to every 4 months. Last year, the FDA approved a high-dose formulation of the anti-VEGF treatment aflibercept 8 mg (Eylea HD) to be given every 2-4 months, as well.

But even these treatments require patients going to the office at least three or four times a year for injections, Reginald Sanders, MD, president of the American Society of Retina Specialist, Chicago, and a retina specialist in Washington, DC, told this news organization. “Now with injections, you have the anxiety of getting the injections, you have the inconvenience of coming in on a regular basis to get the injections, and you have mild discomfort — but you don’t go blind,” Dr. Sanders said.

Studies have shown patients with AMD or diabetic macular edema are better off getting more frequent injections, but still drug developers are seeking the holy grail of fewer injections. “How do we make these treatments last longer?” Dr. Sanders said. “Durability has become the catchword in our field. Instead of lasting a month or 2, can it last 3 months? Can it last 6 months? Or even a year? Can you get one injection and be done with it?”

Or, no injection at all?

“We’re looking for incremental improvements and longer-acting drugs, trying to lengthen the time between injections for wet AMD patients,” said David Boyer, MD, a retina specialist in Los Angeles.
 

Two Drugs May Be Better Than One

One combination treatment, sozinibercept, targets VEGF-C and D. The therapy is in two phase 3 trials: One in combination with aflibercept 2 mg (Eylea), which targets VEGF-A and B along with placental growth factor, and the other in combination with ranibizumab, which targets VEGF-A only. Data from one of those trials are expected this year, Dr. Boyer said.

A phase 2 trial last year reported that patients on combination sozinibercept-ranibizumab had significantly better visual acuity improvement than patients on ranibizumab only. The phase 3 trials ShORe with ranibizumab and COAST with aflibercept are evaluating improvements in visual acuity and retinal anatomy.

Two other combination therapies are in phase 2 trials, both with aflibercept: UBX1325 or foselutoclax, a small-molecule inhibitor of B-cell lymphoma extra-large, and umedaptanib pegol, an anti-fibroblast growth factor-2 aptamer. In the foselutoclax-aflibercept trial, 40% of patients didn’t need a supplemental anti-VEGF injection through 48 weeks, and 64% went treatment-free for more than 24 weeks.

Phase 2 trials of intravitreal umedaptanib pegol-aflibercept combination therapy in nAMD last year showed no superiority in vision and anatomical improvements over aflibercept alone but did find the combination halted disease progression, with “striking improvement” in previously untreated patients.
 

Novel Drug Delivery Systems

A host of novel drug delivery systems that could stretch out intervals between injections are in human trials. In 2021, the FDA approved one such system, the refillable port delivery system (PDS) implant with ranibizumab (Susvimo). PDS is a small cylinder implanted into the eye and filled with 100 mg/mL of ranibizumab, to be released for 6 months or so, then refilled in the physician’s office when it’s empty.

But new implants of PDS were halted in 2022 after the manufacturer, Genentech, received reports the device leaked. Genentech said it has fixed those problems and confirmed the device should again become available for implants this year.

The most advanced novel drug delivery system in clinical trials is EYP-1901, a depot that contains the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) vorolanib. The depot is inserted under the ocular surface, where it biodegrades over 6 months as it releases the drug. A phase 3 trial is due to start enrollment at midyear.

An intravitreal implant with the TKI axitinib (Axpaxli) is in a phase 3 trial in nAMD and is due to start a phase 3 trial in diabetic retinopathy this year. At least four other implants, some of which biodegrade as they release the active ingredient, are in phase 1 or 2 trials.

TKIs themselves are a drug class worth watching in retina, said Jennifer I. Lim, MD, director of the retina service at the University of Illinois Chicago and president of the Retina Society.

“With TKIs, which activate intracellularly, in combination with anti-VEGFs will result in enhanced durability and possibly more efficacy for AMD,” Dr. Lim said. “TKIs in the phase 2 studies showed a marked reduction in the need for anti-VEGF injections in previously difficult-to-treat, high-need patient.”
 

Potential for Orals and Topicals

Topical eye drops are commonly used for anti-glaucoma drugs and antibiotics and corticosteroids for eye infections and inflammation, but using them for retinal disease has been a challenge. By the time the drug reaches the back of the eye, it has lost much of its pharmacokinetic activity. Three drops are in clinical trials for diabetic eye disease, with one, OCS-01, a preservative-free formulation of the corticosteroid dexamethasone, scheduled this year to enter a phase 3 trial.

At least four oral tablets are in early-stage human trials for diabetic eye disease. Four others are in clinical trials to treat geographic atrophy or early-stage dry AMD. They include tinlarebant, which is in phase 3 trials for geographic atrophy and Stargardt disease, an inherited retinal disorder.

Two other oral tablets are in human trials for inherited retinal disease. Like tinlarebant, emixustat has been in a phase 3 trial for Stargardt disease but showed no clinically significant improvement in macular atrophy. An early readout of an ongoing phase 2 trial of glideuretinol, a modified form of vitamin A, demonstrated slowed growth of macular atrophy in Stargardt.

These new and emerging treatments may potentially enable retina specialists to manage a rapidly growing aging population more efficiently, Dr. Sanders said.

“We have to figure out, on one hand, how do we catch the disease earlier? Like in other fields of medicine, the earlier you treat someone, the better,” Dr. Sanders said. “And also, how do we efficiently see these patients earlier to get therapy? Using implants or more durable drugs may be able to help us to treat more people more efficiently.”

Dr. Lim disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Alimera Sciences, Bausch + Lomb, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnology, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/ Roche, Graybug Vision, Iveric Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RegenxBio, Santen, SparingVision, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Unity Biotechnology, and Viridian.

Dr. Boyer disclosed financial relationships with 4D Molecular Therapeutics, AbbVie/Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Aldeyra Therapeutics, Alimera Sciences, Alkahest, Allegro, Amgen, Annexon Biosciences, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, AsclepiX Therapeutics, Aviceda Therapeutics, Bausch + Lomb, Bayer, Belite Bio, Clearside Biomedical, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/ Roche, Graybug Vision, Iveric Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Nano scope Therapeutics, Novartis, Ocugen, Oculist, Ocuphire Pharma, Opthea, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RegenxBio, Sanofi, Stilbite Zhuhai, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Thea Laboratories, and Unity Biotechnology. Dr. Sanders had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The burdens that monthly or every-other-month injections in the eye impose on patients with retinal diseases are well-known to be barriers to care for many people with these conditions. Making treatment less onerous has driven research into new treatments since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ranibizumab (Lucentis) in 2006 as the first anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal diseases.

Those new treatments include combination therapies, novel drug delivery systems, and a host of oral and topical medications to boost gains in visual acuity and extend the intervals between injections or avoid the injections altogether. Several of those investigational therapies are poised to hit meaningful milestones in 2024.
 

Regular Eye Injections: How We Got Here

Ranibizumab originally received approval as a monthly injection. Since then, protocols have evolved to space those injections out to every other month in some, but not all, patients.

New drugs have emerged that require less frequent injections. In 2022, the anti-VEGF and angiopoietin-2 inhibitor faricimab (Vabysmo) was approved for dosing up to every 4 months. Last year, the FDA approved a high-dose formulation of the anti-VEGF treatment aflibercept 8 mg (Eylea HD) to be given every 2-4 months, as well.

But even these treatments require patients going to the office at least three or four times a year for injections, Reginald Sanders, MD, president of the American Society of Retina Specialist, Chicago, and a retina specialist in Washington, DC, told this news organization. “Now with injections, you have the anxiety of getting the injections, you have the inconvenience of coming in on a regular basis to get the injections, and you have mild discomfort — but you don’t go blind,” Dr. Sanders said.

Studies have shown patients with AMD or diabetic macular edema are better off getting more frequent injections, but still drug developers are seeking the holy grail of fewer injections. “How do we make these treatments last longer?” Dr. Sanders said. “Durability has become the catchword in our field. Instead of lasting a month or 2, can it last 3 months? Can it last 6 months? Or even a year? Can you get one injection and be done with it?”

Or, no injection at all?

“We’re looking for incremental improvements and longer-acting drugs, trying to lengthen the time between injections for wet AMD patients,” said David Boyer, MD, a retina specialist in Los Angeles.
 

Two Drugs May Be Better Than One

One combination treatment, sozinibercept, targets VEGF-C and D. The therapy is in two phase 3 trials: One in combination with aflibercept 2 mg (Eylea), which targets VEGF-A and B along with placental growth factor, and the other in combination with ranibizumab, which targets VEGF-A only. Data from one of those trials are expected this year, Dr. Boyer said.

A phase 2 trial last year reported that patients on combination sozinibercept-ranibizumab had significantly better visual acuity improvement than patients on ranibizumab only. The phase 3 trials ShORe with ranibizumab and COAST with aflibercept are evaluating improvements in visual acuity and retinal anatomy.

Two other combination therapies are in phase 2 trials, both with aflibercept: UBX1325 or foselutoclax, a small-molecule inhibitor of B-cell lymphoma extra-large, and umedaptanib pegol, an anti-fibroblast growth factor-2 aptamer. In the foselutoclax-aflibercept trial, 40% of patients didn’t need a supplemental anti-VEGF injection through 48 weeks, and 64% went treatment-free for more than 24 weeks.

Phase 2 trials of intravitreal umedaptanib pegol-aflibercept combination therapy in nAMD last year showed no superiority in vision and anatomical improvements over aflibercept alone but did find the combination halted disease progression, with “striking improvement” in previously untreated patients.
 

Novel Drug Delivery Systems

A host of novel drug delivery systems that could stretch out intervals between injections are in human trials. In 2021, the FDA approved one such system, the refillable port delivery system (PDS) implant with ranibizumab (Susvimo). PDS is a small cylinder implanted into the eye and filled with 100 mg/mL of ranibizumab, to be released for 6 months or so, then refilled in the physician’s office when it’s empty.

But new implants of PDS were halted in 2022 after the manufacturer, Genentech, received reports the device leaked. Genentech said it has fixed those problems and confirmed the device should again become available for implants this year.

The most advanced novel drug delivery system in clinical trials is EYP-1901, a depot that contains the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) vorolanib. The depot is inserted under the ocular surface, where it biodegrades over 6 months as it releases the drug. A phase 3 trial is due to start enrollment at midyear.

An intravitreal implant with the TKI axitinib (Axpaxli) is in a phase 3 trial in nAMD and is due to start a phase 3 trial in diabetic retinopathy this year. At least four other implants, some of which biodegrade as they release the active ingredient, are in phase 1 or 2 trials.

TKIs themselves are a drug class worth watching in retina, said Jennifer I. Lim, MD, director of the retina service at the University of Illinois Chicago and president of the Retina Society.

“With TKIs, which activate intracellularly, in combination with anti-VEGFs will result in enhanced durability and possibly more efficacy for AMD,” Dr. Lim said. “TKIs in the phase 2 studies showed a marked reduction in the need for anti-VEGF injections in previously difficult-to-treat, high-need patient.”
 

Potential for Orals and Topicals

Topical eye drops are commonly used for anti-glaucoma drugs and antibiotics and corticosteroids for eye infections and inflammation, but using them for retinal disease has been a challenge. By the time the drug reaches the back of the eye, it has lost much of its pharmacokinetic activity. Three drops are in clinical trials for diabetic eye disease, with one, OCS-01, a preservative-free formulation of the corticosteroid dexamethasone, scheduled this year to enter a phase 3 trial.

At least four oral tablets are in early-stage human trials for diabetic eye disease. Four others are in clinical trials to treat geographic atrophy or early-stage dry AMD. They include tinlarebant, which is in phase 3 trials for geographic atrophy and Stargardt disease, an inherited retinal disorder.

Two other oral tablets are in human trials for inherited retinal disease. Like tinlarebant, emixustat has been in a phase 3 trial for Stargardt disease but showed no clinically significant improvement in macular atrophy. An early readout of an ongoing phase 2 trial of glideuretinol, a modified form of vitamin A, demonstrated slowed growth of macular atrophy in Stargardt.

These new and emerging treatments may potentially enable retina specialists to manage a rapidly growing aging population more efficiently, Dr. Sanders said.

“We have to figure out, on one hand, how do we catch the disease earlier? Like in other fields of medicine, the earlier you treat someone, the better,” Dr. Sanders said. “And also, how do we efficiently see these patients earlier to get therapy? Using implants or more durable drugs may be able to help us to treat more people more efficiently.”

Dr. Lim disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Alimera Sciences, Bausch + Lomb, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnology, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/ Roche, Graybug Vision, Iveric Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RegenxBio, Santen, SparingVision, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Unity Biotechnology, and Viridian.

Dr. Boyer disclosed financial relationships with 4D Molecular Therapeutics, AbbVie/Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Aldeyra Therapeutics, Alimera Sciences, Alkahest, Allegro, Amgen, Annexon Biosciences, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, AsclepiX Therapeutics, Aviceda Therapeutics, Bausch + Lomb, Bayer, Belite Bio, Clearside Biomedical, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/ Roche, Graybug Vision, Iveric Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Nano scope Therapeutics, Novartis, Ocugen, Oculist, Ocuphire Pharma, Opthea, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RegenxBio, Sanofi, Stilbite Zhuhai, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Thea Laboratories, and Unity Biotechnology. Dr. Sanders had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The burdens that monthly or every-other-month injections in the eye impose on patients with retinal diseases are well-known to be barriers to care for many people with these conditions. Making treatment less onerous has driven research into new treatments since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ranibizumab (Lucentis) in 2006 as the first anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal diseases.

Those new treatments include combination therapies, novel drug delivery systems, and a host of oral and topical medications to boost gains in visual acuity and extend the intervals between injections or avoid the injections altogether. Several of those investigational therapies are poised to hit meaningful milestones in 2024.
 

Regular Eye Injections: How We Got Here

Ranibizumab originally received approval as a monthly injection. Since then, protocols have evolved to space those injections out to every other month in some, but not all, patients.

New drugs have emerged that require less frequent injections. In 2022, the anti-VEGF and angiopoietin-2 inhibitor faricimab (Vabysmo) was approved for dosing up to every 4 months. Last year, the FDA approved a high-dose formulation of the anti-VEGF treatment aflibercept 8 mg (Eylea HD) to be given every 2-4 months, as well.

But even these treatments require patients going to the office at least three or four times a year for injections, Reginald Sanders, MD, president of the American Society of Retina Specialist, Chicago, and a retina specialist in Washington, DC, told this news organization. “Now with injections, you have the anxiety of getting the injections, you have the inconvenience of coming in on a regular basis to get the injections, and you have mild discomfort — but you don’t go blind,” Dr. Sanders said.

Studies have shown patients with AMD or diabetic macular edema are better off getting more frequent injections, but still drug developers are seeking the holy grail of fewer injections. “How do we make these treatments last longer?” Dr. Sanders said. “Durability has become the catchword in our field. Instead of lasting a month or 2, can it last 3 months? Can it last 6 months? Or even a year? Can you get one injection and be done with it?”

Or, no injection at all?

“We’re looking for incremental improvements and longer-acting drugs, trying to lengthen the time between injections for wet AMD patients,” said David Boyer, MD, a retina specialist in Los Angeles.
 

Two Drugs May Be Better Than One

One combination treatment, sozinibercept, targets VEGF-C and D. The therapy is in two phase 3 trials: One in combination with aflibercept 2 mg (Eylea), which targets VEGF-A and B along with placental growth factor, and the other in combination with ranibizumab, which targets VEGF-A only. Data from one of those trials are expected this year, Dr. Boyer said.

A phase 2 trial last year reported that patients on combination sozinibercept-ranibizumab had significantly better visual acuity improvement than patients on ranibizumab only. The phase 3 trials ShORe with ranibizumab and COAST with aflibercept are evaluating improvements in visual acuity and retinal anatomy.

Two other combination therapies are in phase 2 trials, both with aflibercept: UBX1325 or foselutoclax, a small-molecule inhibitor of B-cell lymphoma extra-large, and umedaptanib pegol, an anti-fibroblast growth factor-2 aptamer. In the foselutoclax-aflibercept trial, 40% of patients didn’t need a supplemental anti-VEGF injection through 48 weeks, and 64% went treatment-free for more than 24 weeks.

Phase 2 trials of intravitreal umedaptanib pegol-aflibercept combination therapy in nAMD last year showed no superiority in vision and anatomical improvements over aflibercept alone but did find the combination halted disease progression, with “striking improvement” in previously untreated patients.
 

Novel Drug Delivery Systems

A host of novel drug delivery systems that could stretch out intervals between injections are in human trials. In 2021, the FDA approved one such system, the refillable port delivery system (PDS) implant with ranibizumab (Susvimo). PDS is a small cylinder implanted into the eye and filled with 100 mg/mL of ranibizumab, to be released for 6 months or so, then refilled in the physician’s office when it’s empty.

But new implants of PDS were halted in 2022 after the manufacturer, Genentech, received reports the device leaked. Genentech said it has fixed those problems and confirmed the device should again become available for implants this year.

The most advanced novel drug delivery system in clinical trials is EYP-1901, a depot that contains the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) vorolanib. The depot is inserted under the ocular surface, where it biodegrades over 6 months as it releases the drug. A phase 3 trial is due to start enrollment at midyear.

An intravitreal implant with the TKI axitinib (Axpaxli) is in a phase 3 trial in nAMD and is due to start a phase 3 trial in diabetic retinopathy this year. At least four other implants, some of which biodegrade as they release the active ingredient, are in phase 1 or 2 trials.

TKIs themselves are a drug class worth watching in retina, said Jennifer I. Lim, MD, director of the retina service at the University of Illinois Chicago and president of the Retina Society.

“With TKIs, which activate intracellularly, in combination with anti-VEGFs will result in enhanced durability and possibly more efficacy for AMD,” Dr. Lim said. “TKIs in the phase 2 studies showed a marked reduction in the need for anti-VEGF injections in previously difficult-to-treat, high-need patient.”
 

Potential for Orals and Topicals

Topical eye drops are commonly used for anti-glaucoma drugs and antibiotics and corticosteroids for eye infections and inflammation, but using them for retinal disease has been a challenge. By the time the drug reaches the back of the eye, it has lost much of its pharmacokinetic activity. Three drops are in clinical trials for diabetic eye disease, with one, OCS-01, a preservative-free formulation of the corticosteroid dexamethasone, scheduled this year to enter a phase 3 trial.

At least four oral tablets are in early-stage human trials for diabetic eye disease. Four others are in clinical trials to treat geographic atrophy or early-stage dry AMD. They include tinlarebant, which is in phase 3 trials for geographic atrophy and Stargardt disease, an inherited retinal disorder.

Two other oral tablets are in human trials for inherited retinal disease. Like tinlarebant, emixustat has been in a phase 3 trial for Stargardt disease but showed no clinically significant improvement in macular atrophy. An early readout of an ongoing phase 2 trial of glideuretinol, a modified form of vitamin A, demonstrated slowed growth of macular atrophy in Stargardt.

These new and emerging treatments may potentially enable retina specialists to manage a rapidly growing aging population more efficiently, Dr. Sanders said.

“We have to figure out, on one hand, how do we catch the disease earlier? Like in other fields of medicine, the earlier you treat someone, the better,” Dr. Sanders said. “And also, how do we efficiently see these patients earlier to get therapy? Using implants or more durable drugs may be able to help us to treat more people more efficiently.”

Dr. Lim disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Alimera Sciences, Bausch + Lomb, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnology, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/ Roche, Graybug Vision, Iveric Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RegenxBio, Santen, SparingVision, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Unity Biotechnology, and Viridian.

Dr. Boyer disclosed financial relationships with 4D Molecular Therapeutics, AbbVie/Allergan, Adverum Biotechnologies, Aldeyra Therapeutics, Alimera Sciences, Alkahest, Allegro, Amgen, Annexon Biosciences, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, AsclepiX Therapeutics, Aviceda Therapeutics, Bausch + Lomb, Bayer, Belite Bio, Clearside Biomedical, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/ Roche, Graybug Vision, Iveric Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Nano scope Therapeutics, Novartis, Ocugen, Oculist, Ocuphire Pharma, Opthea, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RegenxBio, Sanofi, Stilbite Zhuhai, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Thea Laboratories, and Unity Biotechnology. Dr. Sanders had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emerging evidence suggests that oral health, often overlooked by clinicians, is closely connected with overall health — and this connection has important consequences for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While most studies are observational and can’t prove cause and effect, the associations are robust enough for researchers to conclude that the connection is real.

Endocrinologists and other specialists, as well as primary care physicians, should ask about oral health, if not look in the mouth directly, experts say. “One of the most important things to ask people with diabetes is when their last dental visit was and if they have a follow-up,” said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA advocates for attention to oral health through its 2024 standards of care.

Systemic Impact

“Periodontitis is a probable risk factor for various problems connected to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive systems,” wrote the authors of a recent review on the effects of periodontitis on major organ systems. While not specific to the diabetes connection, the review pinpoints some of the latest evidence that “oral health affects overall health, and…dental health should never be considered a distinct, remote, and lower significant part of health.”

In line with this perspective, and looking specifically at T2D, a recent study of more than 17,000 patients with T2D participating in a screening program in Korea found that periodontitis and an increased number of teeth with cavities were independent risk factors for cerebral or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.17 and 1.67, respectively).

Dental disease and poor oral hygiene were also associated with an increased risk for heart failure among people with T2D in a large cohort study, and the authors suggested that managing oral health may prevent heart failure development.

A recent review suggested that periodontitis exacerbates and promotes the progression of chronic kidney disease, a disorder that affects 1 in 3 people with diabetes.

Studies also have shown that diabetes is associated with cognitive decline, and a review of oral health and dementia progression concluded, “collectively, experimental findings indicate that the connection between oral health and cognition cannot be underestimated.”

Bidirectional Effects

Research has shown that the association between periodontal disease and T2D is likely bidirectional, although there is little awareness of this two-way relationship among patients and providers.

A recent review of this bidirectional relationship focused on microvascular complications, oral microbiota, pro- and anti-inflammatory factors in T2D and periodontal disease and concluded that “these two diseases require specific/complementary therapeutic solutions when they occur in association, with new clinical trials and epidemiological research being necessary for better control of this interdependent pathogenic topic.”

Yet an Australian study showed that 54% of 241 participants in a survey never received any information regarding the bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes and lacked understanding of the association.

What’s the Mechanism?

How does T2D affect the teeth and vice versa? “Basically, people with T2D have high blood sugar, and the sugar comes out in the saliva and that promotes bacterial growth in the mouth and plaque formation on the teeth and gum disease,” Samir Malkani, MD, clinical chief of endocrinology and diabetes at UMass Chan School of Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

“Patients get gingivitis, they get periodontitis, and since the gums and the jaw are a single unit, if the gum disease gets very severe, then there’s loss of jawbone and the teeth could fall out,” he said. There’s also inflammation in the mouth, and “when you have generalized inflammation, it affects the whole body.”

Recent research in Europe suggested that “although the mechanisms behind these associations are partially unclear, poor oral health is probably sustaining systemic inflammation.” Common oral infections, periodontal disease, and cavities are associated with inflammatory metabolic profiles related to an increased risk for cardiometabolic diseases, and they predict future adverse changes in metabolic profiles, according to the authors.

Awareness, Accessibility, Collaboration

Despite the evidence, the connection between oral health and diabetes (any type) is not front of mind with clinicians or patients, Dr. Malkani said. He pointed to a systematic review that included 28 studies of close to 28,000 people in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have “inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits, [and] rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers.”

Social determinants of health have a “huge impact” on whether people will develop T2D and its related complications, including poor oral health, according to the National Clinical Care Commission Report presented to the US Congress in 2022. The commission was charged with making recommendations for federal policies and programs that could more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications.

The commission “approached its charge through the lens of a socioecological and an expanded chronic care model,” the report authors wrote. “It was clear that diabetes in the US cannot simply be viewed as a medical or healthcare problem but also must be addressed as a societal problem that cuts across many sectors, including food, housing, commerce, transportation, and the environment.”

Diabetes also is associated with higher dental costs, another factor affecting an individual’s ability to obtain care.

A recent questionnaire-based study from Denmark found that people with T2D were more likely than those without diabetes to rate their oral health as poor, and that the risk for self-rated poor oral health increased with lower educational attainment. Highest educational attainment and disposable household income were indicators of a high socioeconomic position, and a lower likelihood of rating their oral health as poor, again pointing out inequities.

The authors concluded that “diabetes and dental care providers should engage in multidisciplinary collaboration across healthcare sectors to ensure coherent treatment and management of diabetes.”

But such collaborations are easier said than done. “One of the challenges is our fragmented health system, where oral health and medical care are separate,” Dr. Gabbay said.

For the most part, the two are separate, Dr. Malkani agreed. “When we’re dealing with most complications of diabetes, like involvement of the heart or eyes or kidneys, we can have interdisciplinary care — everyone is within the overall discipline of medicine, and if I refer to a colleague in ophthalmology or a cardiologist or a vascular surgeon, they can all be within the same network from an insurance point of view, as well.”

But for dental care, referrals are interprofessional, not interdisciplinary. “I have to make sure that the patient has a dentist because dentists are usually not part of medical networks, and if the patient doesn’t have dental insurance, then cost and access can be a challenge.”

A recent systematic review from Australia on interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative care found that more than a third of medical professionals were “ignorant” of the relationship between oral health and T2D. Furthermore, only 30% reported ever referring their patients for an oral health assessment. And there was little, if any, interprofessional collaborative care between medical and dental professionals while managing patients with T2D.

Treat the Teeth

“We always talk to our T2D patients about the importance of getting an eye exam, a foot exam, and a kidney test,” Dr. Malkani said. “But we also need to make sure that they’re going to the dentist. Normally, people get their teeth cleaned twice a year. But if you have diabetes and poor oral health, you might need to get your teeth cleaned every three months, and insurance often will pay for that.”

Furthermore, in keeping with the bidirectional connection, treating periodontitis can help glycemic control. The authors of a 2022 update of a Cochrane review on treating periodontitis for glycemic control wrote that they “doubled the number of included studies and participants” from the 2015 update to 35 studies randomizing 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. This “led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion.”

“We now have moderate‐certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment vs no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.”

“Dentists also have a responsibility,” Dr. Malkani added. “If they see someone with severe gum disease or cavities, especially at a younger age, they need to tell that person to get their blood sugar checked and make sure they don’t have T2D.”

In fact, a recent review found that complications of T2D such as xerostomia and periodontal problems adversely affect well-being, and that “dentists can play an essential role in the awareness of diabetic patients about these problems and improve their quality of life.”

Key Stats

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted these facts about diabetes and oral health:

• Adults aged 20 years or older with diabetes are 40% more likely to have untreated cavities than similar adults without diabetes.
• About 60% of US adults with diabetes had a medical visit in the past year but no dental visit.
• Expanding healthcare coverage for periodontal treatment among people with diabetes could save each person about $6000 (2019 US dollars) over their lifetimes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes lack functional dentition (have fewer than 20 teeth) 46% more often and have severe tooth loss (eight or fewer teeth) 56% more often than those without diabetes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes are more likely to report that they have a hard time eating because of dental problems.
• Annual dental expenditures for an adult with diabetes are $77 (2017 US dollars) higher than for an adult without diabetes. This cost translates to $1.9 billion for the United States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emerging evidence suggests that oral health, often overlooked by clinicians, is closely connected with overall health — and this connection has important consequences for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While most studies are observational and can’t prove cause and effect, the associations are robust enough for researchers to conclude that the connection is real.

Endocrinologists and other specialists, as well as primary care physicians, should ask about oral health, if not look in the mouth directly, experts say. “One of the most important things to ask people with diabetes is when their last dental visit was and if they have a follow-up,” said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA advocates for attention to oral health through its 2024 standards of care.

Systemic Impact

“Periodontitis is a probable risk factor for various problems connected to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive systems,” wrote the authors of a recent review on the effects of periodontitis on major organ systems. While not specific to the diabetes connection, the review pinpoints some of the latest evidence that “oral health affects overall health, and…dental health should never be considered a distinct, remote, and lower significant part of health.”

In line with this perspective, and looking specifically at T2D, a recent study of more than 17,000 patients with T2D participating in a screening program in Korea found that periodontitis and an increased number of teeth with cavities were independent risk factors for cerebral or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.17 and 1.67, respectively).

Dental disease and poor oral hygiene were also associated with an increased risk for heart failure among people with T2D in a large cohort study, and the authors suggested that managing oral health may prevent heart failure development.

A recent review suggested that periodontitis exacerbates and promotes the progression of chronic kidney disease, a disorder that affects 1 in 3 people with diabetes.

Studies also have shown that diabetes is associated with cognitive decline, and a review of oral health and dementia progression concluded, “collectively, experimental findings indicate that the connection between oral health and cognition cannot be underestimated.”

Bidirectional Effects

Research has shown that the association between periodontal disease and T2D is likely bidirectional, although there is little awareness of this two-way relationship among patients and providers.

A recent review of this bidirectional relationship focused on microvascular complications, oral microbiota, pro- and anti-inflammatory factors in T2D and periodontal disease and concluded that “these two diseases require specific/complementary therapeutic solutions when they occur in association, with new clinical trials and epidemiological research being necessary for better control of this interdependent pathogenic topic.”

Yet an Australian study showed that 54% of 241 participants in a survey never received any information regarding the bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes and lacked understanding of the association.

What’s the Mechanism?

How does T2D affect the teeth and vice versa? “Basically, people with T2D have high blood sugar, and the sugar comes out in the saliva and that promotes bacterial growth in the mouth and plaque formation on the teeth and gum disease,” Samir Malkani, MD, clinical chief of endocrinology and diabetes at UMass Chan School of Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

“Patients get gingivitis, they get periodontitis, and since the gums and the jaw are a single unit, if the gum disease gets very severe, then there’s loss of jawbone and the teeth could fall out,” he said. There’s also inflammation in the mouth, and “when you have generalized inflammation, it affects the whole body.”

Recent research in Europe suggested that “although the mechanisms behind these associations are partially unclear, poor oral health is probably sustaining systemic inflammation.” Common oral infections, periodontal disease, and cavities are associated with inflammatory metabolic profiles related to an increased risk for cardiometabolic diseases, and they predict future adverse changes in metabolic profiles, according to the authors.

Awareness, Accessibility, Collaboration

Despite the evidence, the connection between oral health and diabetes (any type) is not front of mind with clinicians or patients, Dr. Malkani said. He pointed to a systematic review that included 28 studies of close to 28,000 people in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have “inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits, [and] rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers.”

Social determinants of health have a “huge impact” on whether people will develop T2D and its related complications, including poor oral health, according to the National Clinical Care Commission Report presented to the US Congress in 2022. The commission was charged with making recommendations for federal policies and programs that could more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications.

The commission “approached its charge through the lens of a socioecological and an expanded chronic care model,” the report authors wrote. “It was clear that diabetes in the US cannot simply be viewed as a medical or healthcare problem but also must be addressed as a societal problem that cuts across many sectors, including food, housing, commerce, transportation, and the environment.”

Diabetes also is associated with higher dental costs, another factor affecting an individual’s ability to obtain care.

A recent questionnaire-based study from Denmark found that people with T2D were more likely than those without diabetes to rate their oral health as poor, and that the risk for self-rated poor oral health increased with lower educational attainment. Highest educational attainment and disposable household income were indicators of a high socioeconomic position, and a lower likelihood of rating their oral health as poor, again pointing out inequities.

The authors concluded that “diabetes and dental care providers should engage in multidisciplinary collaboration across healthcare sectors to ensure coherent treatment and management of diabetes.”

But such collaborations are easier said than done. “One of the challenges is our fragmented health system, where oral health and medical care are separate,” Dr. Gabbay said.

For the most part, the two are separate, Dr. Malkani agreed. “When we’re dealing with most complications of diabetes, like involvement of the heart or eyes or kidneys, we can have interdisciplinary care — everyone is within the overall discipline of medicine, and if I refer to a colleague in ophthalmology or a cardiologist or a vascular surgeon, they can all be within the same network from an insurance point of view, as well.”

But for dental care, referrals are interprofessional, not interdisciplinary. “I have to make sure that the patient has a dentist because dentists are usually not part of medical networks, and if the patient doesn’t have dental insurance, then cost and access can be a challenge.”

A recent systematic review from Australia on interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative care found that more than a third of medical professionals were “ignorant” of the relationship between oral health and T2D. Furthermore, only 30% reported ever referring their patients for an oral health assessment. And there was little, if any, interprofessional collaborative care between medical and dental professionals while managing patients with T2D.

Treat the Teeth

“We always talk to our T2D patients about the importance of getting an eye exam, a foot exam, and a kidney test,” Dr. Malkani said. “But we also need to make sure that they’re going to the dentist. Normally, people get their teeth cleaned twice a year. But if you have diabetes and poor oral health, you might need to get your teeth cleaned every three months, and insurance often will pay for that.”

Furthermore, in keeping with the bidirectional connection, treating periodontitis can help glycemic control. The authors of a 2022 update of a Cochrane review on treating periodontitis for glycemic control wrote that they “doubled the number of included studies and participants” from the 2015 update to 35 studies randomizing 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. This “led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion.”

“We now have moderate‐certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment vs no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.”

“Dentists also have a responsibility,” Dr. Malkani added. “If they see someone with severe gum disease or cavities, especially at a younger age, they need to tell that person to get their blood sugar checked and make sure they don’t have T2D.”

In fact, a recent review found that complications of T2D such as xerostomia and periodontal problems adversely affect well-being, and that “dentists can play an essential role in the awareness of diabetic patients about these problems and improve their quality of life.”

Key Stats

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted these facts about diabetes and oral health:

• Adults aged 20 years or older with diabetes are 40% more likely to have untreated cavities than similar adults without diabetes.
• About 60% of US adults with diabetes had a medical visit in the past year but no dental visit.
• Expanding healthcare coverage for periodontal treatment among people with diabetes could save each person about $6000 (2019 US dollars) over their lifetimes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes lack functional dentition (have fewer than 20 teeth) 46% more often and have severe tooth loss (eight or fewer teeth) 56% more often than those without diabetes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes are more likely to report that they have a hard time eating because of dental problems.
• Annual dental expenditures for an adult with diabetes are $77 (2017 US dollars) higher than for an adult without diabetes. This cost translates to $1.9 billion for the United States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emerging evidence suggests that oral health, often overlooked by clinicians, is closely connected with overall health — and this connection has important consequences for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While most studies are observational and can’t prove cause and effect, the associations are robust enough for researchers to conclude that the connection is real.

Endocrinologists and other specialists, as well as primary care physicians, should ask about oral health, if not look in the mouth directly, experts say. “One of the most important things to ask people with diabetes is when their last dental visit was and if they have a follow-up,” said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA advocates for attention to oral health through its 2024 standards of care.

Systemic Impact

“Periodontitis is a probable risk factor for various problems connected to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive systems,” wrote the authors of a recent review on the effects of periodontitis on major organ systems. While not specific to the diabetes connection, the review pinpoints some of the latest evidence that “oral health affects overall health, and…dental health should never be considered a distinct, remote, and lower significant part of health.”

In line with this perspective, and looking specifically at T2D, a recent study of more than 17,000 patients with T2D participating in a screening program in Korea found that periodontitis and an increased number of teeth with cavities were independent risk factors for cerebral or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.17 and 1.67, respectively).

Dental disease and poor oral hygiene were also associated with an increased risk for heart failure among people with T2D in a large cohort study, and the authors suggested that managing oral health may prevent heart failure development.

A recent review suggested that periodontitis exacerbates and promotes the progression of chronic kidney disease, a disorder that affects 1 in 3 people with diabetes.

Studies also have shown that diabetes is associated with cognitive decline, and a review of oral health and dementia progression concluded, “collectively, experimental findings indicate that the connection between oral health and cognition cannot be underestimated.”

Bidirectional Effects

Research has shown that the association between periodontal disease and T2D is likely bidirectional, although there is little awareness of this two-way relationship among patients and providers.

A recent review of this bidirectional relationship focused on microvascular complications, oral microbiota, pro- and anti-inflammatory factors in T2D and periodontal disease and concluded that “these two diseases require specific/complementary therapeutic solutions when they occur in association, with new clinical trials and epidemiological research being necessary for better control of this interdependent pathogenic topic.”

Yet an Australian study showed that 54% of 241 participants in a survey never received any information regarding the bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes and lacked understanding of the association.

What’s the Mechanism?

How does T2D affect the teeth and vice versa? “Basically, people with T2D have high blood sugar, and the sugar comes out in the saliva and that promotes bacterial growth in the mouth and plaque formation on the teeth and gum disease,” Samir Malkani, MD, clinical chief of endocrinology and diabetes at UMass Chan School of Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

“Patients get gingivitis, they get periodontitis, and since the gums and the jaw are a single unit, if the gum disease gets very severe, then there’s loss of jawbone and the teeth could fall out,” he said. There’s also inflammation in the mouth, and “when you have generalized inflammation, it affects the whole body.”

Recent research in Europe suggested that “although the mechanisms behind these associations are partially unclear, poor oral health is probably sustaining systemic inflammation.” Common oral infections, periodontal disease, and cavities are associated with inflammatory metabolic profiles related to an increased risk for cardiometabolic diseases, and they predict future adverse changes in metabolic profiles, according to the authors.

Awareness, Accessibility, Collaboration

Despite the evidence, the connection between oral health and diabetes (any type) is not front of mind with clinicians or patients, Dr. Malkani said. He pointed to a systematic review that included 28 studies of close to 28,000 people in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have “inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits, [and] rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers.”

Social determinants of health have a “huge impact” on whether people will develop T2D and its related complications, including poor oral health, according to the National Clinical Care Commission Report presented to the US Congress in 2022. The commission was charged with making recommendations for federal policies and programs that could more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications.

The commission “approached its charge through the lens of a socioecological and an expanded chronic care model,” the report authors wrote. “It was clear that diabetes in the US cannot simply be viewed as a medical or healthcare problem but also must be addressed as a societal problem that cuts across many sectors, including food, housing, commerce, transportation, and the environment.”

Diabetes also is associated with higher dental costs, another factor affecting an individual’s ability to obtain care.

A recent questionnaire-based study from Denmark found that people with T2D were more likely than those without diabetes to rate their oral health as poor, and that the risk for self-rated poor oral health increased with lower educational attainment. Highest educational attainment and disposable household income were indicators of a high socioeconomic position, and a lower likelihood of rating their oral health as poor, again pointing out inequities.

The authors concluded that “diabetes and dental care providers should engage in multidisciplinary collaboration across healthcare sectors to ensure coherent treatment and management of diabetes.”

But such collaborations are easier said than done. “One of the challenges is our fragmented health system, where oral health and medical care are separate,” Dr. Gabbay said.

For the most part, the two are separate, Dr. Malkani agreed. “When we’re dealing with most complications of diabetes, like involvement of the heart or eyes or kidneys, we can have interdisciplinary care — everyone is within the overall discipline of medicine, and if I refer to a colleague in ophthalmology or a cardiologist or a vascular surgeon, they can all be within the same network from an insurance point of view, as well.”

But for dental care, referrals are interprofessional, not interdisciplinary. “I have to make sure that the patient has a dentist because dentists are usually not part of medical networks, and if the patient doesn’t have dental insurance, then cost and access can be a challenge.”

A recent systematic review from Australia on interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative care found that more than a third of medical professionals were “ignorant” of the relationship between oral health and T2D. Furthermore, only 30% reported ever referring their patients for an oral health assessment. And there was little, if any, interprofessional collaborative care between medical and dental professionals while managing patients with T2D.

Treat the Teeth

“We always talk to our T2D patients about the importance of getting an eye exam, a foot exam, and a kidney test,” Dr. Malkani said. “But we also need to make sure that they’re going to the dentist. Normally, people get their teeth cleaned twice a year. But if you have diabetes and poor oral health, you might need to get your teeth cleaned every three months, and insurance often will pay for that.”

Furthermore, in keeping with the bidirectional connection, treating periodontitis can help glycemic control. The authors of a 2022 update of a Cochrane review on treating periodontitis for glycemic control wrote that they “doubled the number of included studies and participants” from the 2015 update to 35 studies randomizing 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. This “led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion.”

“We now have moderate‐certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment vs no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.”

“Dentists also have a responsibility,” Dr. Malkani added. “If they see someone with severe gum disease or cavities, especially at a younger age, they need to tell that person to get their blood sugar checked and make sure they don’t have T2D.”

In fact, a recent review found that complications of T2D such as xerostomia and periodontal problems adversely affect well-being, and that “dentists can play an essential role in the awareness of diabetic patients about these problems and improve their quality of life.”

Key Stats

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted these facts about diabetes and oral health:

• Adults aged 20 years or older with diabetes are 40% more likely to have untreated cavities than similar adults without diabetes.
• About 60% of US adults with diabetes had a medical visit in the past year but no dental visit.
• Expanding healthcare coverage for periodontal treatment among people with diabetes could save each person about $6000 (2019 US dollars) over their lifetimes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes lack functional dentition (have fewer than 20 teeth) 46% more often and have severe tooth loss (eight or fewer teeth) 56% more often than those without diabetes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes are more likely to report that they have a hard time eating because of dental problems.
• Annual dental expenditures for an adult with diabetes are $77 (2017 US dollars) higher than for an adult without diabetes. This cost translates to $1.9 billion for the United States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new review of the literature on climate change and atopic dermatitis (AD) found evidence of a broad and negative impact of climatic hazards on various aspects of AD, including prevalence, severity/flares, and AD-related health care utilization. But it also showed the extent to which research is lacking.

“There’s not as much out there as one might expect, given that this is the most common dermatologic disease and one of the most burdensome diseases worldwide,” said Katrina Abuabara, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, one of the senior authors of the review.

Dr. Abuabara

“There’s a genetic predisposition to AD, but it’s certainly very environmentally patterned,” she said in an interview. “Given that we know there are strong environmental influences, it’s an obvious example of how climate change affects our health ... It is one that may be underappreciated and that could give us near-term information.”

Indeed, she and her coauthors emphasized in their paper, “AD could serve as a case study for climatic impacts on health.” The review, which looked beyond the realm of air pollution, was published in Allergy, the journal of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 

Dr. Abuabara, UCSF dermatologist Sheng-Pei Wang, MD, MPH, and their coauthors — dermatologists and others from the United States, Europe, Brazil, and India — were convened by the International Eczema Council and teamed up with a biologist and climate science expert, Camilo Mora, PhD, of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu. Because research to date has focused on air pollution, with the impact of other hazards that Dr. Abuabara said were “a lot less developed and organized,” they used a framework and search strategy developed by Dr. Mora that looks at 10 climatic hazards related to greenhouse gas emissions, including heat waves, drought, precipitation, wildfires, and sea level rise.

“Given that this [framework] was already out there in the literature, we thought it would give us a structure and a nice way to organize the literature,” Dr. Abuabara said. While the literature is too heterogeneous for a systematic review and meta-analysis, the researchers used a systematic approach, she explained.

Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and a coauthor of the paper, said in an e-mail that the review raises “our consciousness about how these [climate] changes may be impacting atopic dermatitis.”

Courtesy University of California, San Diego

Mixed Results, But Negative Impacts Overall

The researchers identified 18 studies across most of the 10 climatic hazards with evidence for an impact on AD, the majority of which demonstrated harmful effects on various aspects of AD — most commonly on AD-related health care utilization and severity/flares. Only three of the studies examined AD prevalence and notably, none looked at incidence.

angkhan/Getty Images

The impact of climatic hazards on AD appears to vary depending on the geographic region and its baseline climate, the authors said. A study in South Korea, for instance, found that in areas declared as disaster zones after storms and heavy rains, the number of AD-related outpatient visits increased for all ages. And a study in the United States showed an increased prevalence of childhood eczema in states with higher mean annual precipitation. However, some other studies on precipitation found no associations.

Just as published studies on precipitation yielded mixed results, so have studies on warming temperatures, Dr. Abuabara and her colleagues reported in their paper, with higher temperatures found to be positively associated with severity of AD symptoms in a study among patients with AD living in a region of Southern Italy, but decreased AD-related health care utilization in a study in Denmark.

In another study of over 5,500 children enrolled in an eczema registry in the United States between 2004 and 2012, higher temperature (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, P < .001) and increased sun exposure (OR = 0.93, P = .009) were associated with poorly controlled eczema, after the researchers controlled for gender, race, income, and topical medication use.

Studies From 10 Countries Reviewed

Across the 18 studies identified in the review, data were collected in 10 countries. Five studies were conducted in the United States, one used global data, six were from Asia, and the others were from Europe and Africa. Data are lacking, the researchers wrote, in many parts of the world, including coastal regions of the tropics that are projected to experience the largest cumulative climatic hazards.

Future research should not only cover more geographic areas — especially those most impacted by climate change — but should examine impacts on AD incidence, prevalence, and “long-term monitoring of disease activity over time at the individual level,” the researchers recommended. Research should also aim to integrate multiple climatic factors and types of climate data, they said.

“As researchers, we always like to distill things down, but with climatic hazards like warming, you have to integrate other factors such as what the baseline temperature is and how precipitation is involved,” Dr. Abuabara said in the interview. With precipitation, similarly, associated factors such as outdoor humidity, pollen, and pollution exposure may also be at play for AD. Overall, she said, “you have to integrate many types of data.”

In addition to their literature review, the researchers created maps comparing the past, present, and future burden of climatic hazards to AD prevalence data. One pair of maps illustrates global cumulative exposure to climatic hazards in 2005 in parallel with the estimated annual change in AD prevalence in the subsequent decade. “It’s meant to be descriptive,” Dr. Abuabara said in the interview. The maps show alignment “between the areas experiencing the most climatic hazards and those where we subsequently saw the most rapid changes in AD.”

The paper also describes how climatic factors impact skin physiology and AD — exacerbating barrier impairment, immune dysregulation, dysbiosis, and pruritus — and how there are differential impacts on vulnerable and displaced populations with AD. It also briefly addresses air pollution, which was not included in the review framework but is impacted by wildfire and other included climatic factors.
 

The Need to Better Track AD, Anticipate Clinical Impact

“Outside of epidemiology, [clinicians and others] may not realize we actually have fairly poor measures of prevalence and severity of AD and disease flare over time,” Dr. Abuabara said. So “improving the ways we can measure this disease and getting more detailed data is important” for assessing the impact of climate changes.

More skin measures should be incorporated into large national health surveys, for one. “Skin doesn’t come to mind as much as diseases like heart disease and diabetes,” she said, and when surveys ask about AD, “they often don’t ask specific enough questions or ask about severity.” The clinical impacts of adverse climatic changes and extreme weather events — sudden therapy interruption, particularly of systemic agents, and delayed treatment, for instance — should be reflected in the planning and provision of dermatology services, Dr. Abuabara and her coauthors wrote.

There are currently no evidence-based recommendations for what patients with AD can do differently when faced with wildfire smoke or other climatic hazards, other than general recommendations, for instance, to reduce exposure to wildfire smoke and aeroallergens, she said in the interview. But “overall, the field has moved to more proactive treatment patterns ... toward providing anticipatory guidance and having individualized treatment plans that give people the tools to be ready to step things up or counteract [flares or worsening] if they need to.”

She and her San Francisco–based coauthors have already experienced the impact of wildfires firsthand. “It was amazing — in the period right after a major wildfire hundreds of miles away from the Bay area, we saw a huge spike in visits for itch and for eczema,” she said, referring to research on AD clinic visits after the 2018 California Camp Fire. “It showed up dramatically in the data,” said Dr. Abuabara, one of the authors of that study.

The new review adds to a growing body of literature documenting health impacts of climate change and advocating for action. In September 2021, more than 230 medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine — though not any dermatology journals — published an editorial calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health.

The following year, a commentary published across four dermatology journals discussed current and future impacts of climate change and urged dermatologists to become more engaged in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change.

More recently, dermatologists have published about the environmental impact of professional practices such as print journals and meeting samples using single-use plastics.

Dr. Abuabara disclosed to Allergy that she is a consultant for TARGET RWE and Amgen and that her institution receives grants for research from Pfizer and LaRoche Posay. Dr. Eichenfield reported serving as a scientific adviser, consultant, and/or study investigator for Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen and other companies. Dr. Wang disclosed that she is an International Eczema Council Fellow with financial support from Abbvie. Other authors had multiple disclosures.

A new review of the literature on climate change and atopic dermatitis (AD) found evidence of a broad and negative impact of climatic hazards on various aspects of AD, including prevalence, severity/flares, and AD-related health care utilization. But it also showed the extent to which research is lacking.

“There’s not as much out there as one might expect, given that this is the most common dermatologic disease and one of the most burdensome diseases worldwide,” said Katrina Abuabara, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, one of the senior authors of the review.

Dr. Abuabara

“There’s a genetic predisposition to AD, but it’s certainly very environmentally patterned,” she said in an interview. “Given that we know there are strong environmental influences, it’s an obvious example of how climate change affects our health ... It is one that may be underappreciated and that could give us near-term information.”

Indeed, she and her coauthors emphasized in their paper, “AD could serve as a case study for climatic impacts on health.” The review, which looked beyond the realm of air pollution, was published in Allergy, the journal of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 

Dr. Abuabara, UCSF dermatologist Sheng-Pei Wang, MD, MPH, and their coauthors — dermatologists and others from the United States, Europe, Brazil, and India — were convened by the International Eczema Council and teamed up with a biologist and climate science expert, Camilo Mora, PhD, of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu. Because research to date has focused on air pollution, with the impact of other hazards that Dr. Abuabara said were “a lot less developed and organized,” they used a framework and search strategy developed by Dr. Mora that looks at 10 climatic hazards related to greenhouse gas emissions, including heat waves, drought, precipitation, wildfires, and sea level rise.

“Given that this [framework] was already out there in the literature, we thought it would give us a structure and a nice way to organize the literature,” Dr. Abuabara said. While the literature is too heterogeneous for a systematic review and meta-analysis, the researchers used a systematic approach, she explained.

Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and a coauthor of the paper, said in an e-mail that the review raises “our consciousness about how these [climate] changes may be impacting atopic dermatitis.”

Courtesy University of California, San Diego

Mixed Results, But Negative Impacts Overall

The researchers identified 18 studies across most of the 10 climatic hazards with evidence for an impact on AD, the majority of which demonstrated harmful effects on various aspects of AD — most commonly on AD-related health care utilization and severity/flares. Only three of the studies examined AD prevalence and notably, none looked at incidence.

angkhan/Getty Images

The impact of climatic hazards on AD appears to vary depending on the geographic region and its baseline climate, the authors said. A study in South Korea, for instance, found that in areas declared as disaster zones after storms and heavy rains, the number of AD-related outpatient visits increased for all ages. And a study in the United States showed an increased prevalence of childhood eczema in states with higher mean annual precipitation. However, some other studies on precipitation found no associations.

Just as published studies on precipitation yielded mixed results, so have studies on warming temperatures, Dr. Abuabara and her colleagues reported in their paper, with higher temperatures found to be positively associated with severity of AD symptoms in a study among patients with AD living in a region of Southern Italy, but decreased AD-related health care utilization in a study in Denmark.

In another study of over 5,500 children enrolled in an eczema registry in the United States between 2004 and 2012, higher temperature (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, P < .001) and increased sun exposure (OR = 0.93, P = .009) were associated with poorly controlled eczema, after the researchers controlled for gender, race, income, and topical medication use.

Studies From 10 Countries Reviewed

Across the 18 studies identified in the review, data were collected in 10 countries. Five studies were conducted in the United States, one used global data, six were from Asia, and the others were from Europe and Africa. Data are lacking, the researchers wrote, in many parts of the world, including coastal regions of the tropics that are projected to experience the largest cumulative climatic hazards.

Future research should not only cover more geographic areas — especially those most impacted by climate change — but should examine impacts on AD incidence, prevalence, and “long-term monitoring of disease activity over time at the individual level,” the researchers recommended. Research should also aim to integrate multiple climatic factors and types of climate data, they said.

“As researchers, we always like to distill things down, but with climatic hazards like warming, you have to integrate other factors such as what the baseline temperature is and how precipitation is involved,” Dr. Abuabara said in the interview. With precipitation, similarly, associated factors such as outdoor humidity, pollen, and pollution exposure may also be at play for AD. Overall, she said, “you have to integrate many types of data.”

In addition to their literature review, the researchers created maps comparing the past, present, and future burden of climatic hazards to AD prevalence data. One pair of maps illustrates global cumulative exposure to climatic hazards in 2005 in parallel with the estimated annual change in AD prevalence in the subsequent decade. “It’s meant to be descriptive,” Dr. Abuabara said in the interview. The maps show alignment “between the areas experiencing the most climatic hazards and those where we subsequently saw the most rapid changes in AD.”

The paper also describes how climatic factors impact skin physiology and AD — exacerbating barrier impairment, immune dysregulation, dysbiosis, and pruritus — and how there are differential impacts on vulnerable and displaced populations with AD. It also briefly addresses air pollution, which was not included in the review framework but is impacted by wildfire and other included climatic factors.
 

The Need to Better Track AD, Anticipate Clinical Impact

“Outside of epidemiology, [clinicians and others] may not realize we actually have fairly poor measures of prevalence and severity of AD and disease flare over time,” Dr. Abuabara said. So “improving the ways we can measure this disease and getting more detailed data is important” for assessing the impact of climate changes.

More skin measures should be incorporated into large national health surveys, for one. “Skin doesn’t come to mind as much as diseases like heart disease and diabetes,” she said, and when surveys ask about AD, “they often don’t ask specific enough questions or ask about severity.” The clinical impacts of adverse climatic changes and extreme weather events — sudden therapy interruption, particularly of systemic agents, and delayed treatment, for instance — should be reflected in the planning and provision of dermatology services, Dr. Abuabara and her coauthors wrote.

There are currently no evidence-based recommendations for what patients with AD can do differently when faced with wildfire smoke or other climatic hazards, other than general recommendations, for instance, to reduce exposure to wildfire smoke and aeroallergens, she said in the interview. But “overall, the field has moved to more proactive treatment patterns ... toward providing anticipatory guidance and having individualized treatment plans that give people the tools to be ready to step things up or counteract [flares or worsening] if they need to.”

She and her San Francisco–based coauthors have already experienced the impact of wildfires firsthand. “It was amazing — in the period right after a major wildfire hundreds of miles away from the Bay area, we saw a huge spike in visits for itch and for eczema,” she said, referring to research on AD clinic visits after the 2018 California Camp Fire. “It showed up dramatically in the data,” said Dr. Abuabara, one of the authors of that study.

The new review adds to a growing body of literature documenting health impacts of climate change and advocating for action. In September 2021, more than 230 medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine — though not any dermatology journals — published an editorial calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health.

The following year, a commentary published across four dermatology journals discussed current and future impacts of climate change and urged dermatologists to become more engaged in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change.

More recently, dermatologists have published about the environmental impact of professional practices such as print journals and meeting samples using single-use plastics.

Dr. Abuabara disclosed to Allergy that she is a consultant for TARGET RWE and Amgen and that her institution receives grants for research from Pfizer and LaRoche Posay. Dr. Eichenfield reported serving as a scientific adviser, consultant, and/or study investigator for Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen and other companies. Dr. Wang disclosed that she is an International Eczema Council Fellow with financial support from Abbvie. Other authors had multiple disclosures.

A new review of the literature on climate change and atopic dermatitis (AD) found evidence of a broad and negative impact of climatic hazards on various aspects of AD, including prevalence, severity/flares, and AD-related health care utilization. But it also showed the extent to which research is lacking.

“There’s not as much out there as one might expect, given that this is the most common dermatologic disease and one of the most burdensome diseases worldwide,” said Katrina Abuabara, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, one of the senior authors of the review.

Dr. Abuabara

“There’s a genetic predisposition to AD, but it’s certainly very environmentally patterned,” she said in an interview. “Given that we know there are strong environmental influences, it’s an obvious example of how climate change affects our health ... It is one that may be underappreciated and that could give us near-term information.”

Indeed, she and her coauthors emphasized in their paper, “AD could serve as a case study for climatic impacts on health.” The review, which looked beyond the realm of air pollution, was published in Allergy, the journal of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 

Dr. Abuabara, UCSF dermatologist Sheng-Pei Wang, MD, MPH, and their coauthors — dermatologists and others from the United States, Europe, Brazil, and India — were convened by the International Eczema Council and teamed up with a biologist and climate science expert, Camilo Mora, PhD, of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu. Because research to date has focused on air pollution, with the impact of other hazards that Dr. Abuabara said were “a lot less developed and organized,” they used a framework and search strategy developed by Dr. Mora that looks at 10 climatic hazards related to greenhouse gas emissions, including heat waves, drought, precipitation, wildfires, and sea level rise.

“Given that this [framework] was already out there in the literature, we thought it would give us a structure and a nice way to organize the literature,” Dr. Abuabara said. While the literature is too heterogeneous for a systematic review and meta-analysis, the researchers used a systematic approach, she explained.

Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and a coauthor of the paper, said in an e-mail that the review raises “our consciousness about how these [climate] changes may be impacting atopic dermatitis.”

Courtesy University of California, San Diego

Mixed Results, But Negative Impacts Overall

The researchers identified 18 studies across most of the 10 climatic hazards with evidence for an impact on AD, the majority of which demonstrated harmful effects on various aspects of AD — most commonly on AD-related health care utilization and severity/flares. Only three of the studies examined AD prevalence and notably, none looked at incidence.

angkhan/Getty Images

The impact of climatic hazards on AD appears to vary depending on the geographic region and its baseline climate, the authors said. A study in South Korea, for instance, found that in areas declared as disaster zones after storms and heavy rains, the number of AD-related outpatient visits increased for all ages. And a study in the United States showed an increased prevalence of childhood eczema in states with higher mean annual precipitation. However, some other studies on precipitation found no associations.

Just as published studies on precipitation yielded mixed results, so have studies on warming temperatures, Dr. Abuabara and her colleagues reported in their paper, with higher temperatures found to be positively associated with severity of AD symptoms in a study among patients with AD living in a region of Southern Italy, but decreased AD-related health care utilization in a study in Denmark.

In another study of over 5,500 children enrolled in an eczema registry in the United States between 2004 and 2012, higher temperature (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, P < .001) and increased sun exposure (OR = 0.93, P = .009) were associated with poorly controlled eczema, after the researchers controlled for gender, race, income, and topical medication use.

Studies From 10 Countries Reviewed

Across the 18 studies identified in the review, data were collected in 10 countries. Five studies were conducted in the United States, one used global data, six were from Asia, and the others were from Europe and Africa. Data are lacking, the researchers wrote, in many parts of the world, including coastal regions of the tropics that are projected to experience the largest cumulative climatic hazards.

Future research should not only cover more geographic areas — especially those most impacted by climate change — but should examine impacts on AD incidence, prevalence, and “long-term monitoring of disease activity over time at the individual level,” the researchers recommended. Research should also aim to integrate multiple climatic factors and types of climate data, they said.

“As researchers, we always like to distill things down, but with climatic hazards like warming, you have to integrate other factors such as what the baseline temperature is and how precipitation is involved,” Dr. Abuabara said in the interview. With precipitation, similarly, associated factors such as outdoor humidity, pollen, and pollution exposure may also be at play for AD. Overall, she said, “you have to integrate many types of data.”

In addition to their literature review, the researchers created maps comparing the past, present, and future burden of climatic hazards to AD prevalence data. One pair of maps illustrates global cumulative exposure to climatic hazards in 2005 in parallel with the estimated annual change in AD prevalence in the subsequent decade. “It’s meant to be descriptive,” Dr. Abuabara said in the interview. The maps show alignment “between the areas experiencing the most climatic hazards and those where we subsequently saw the most rapid changes in AD.”

The paper also describes how climatic factors impact skin physiology and AD — exacerbating barrier impairment, immune dysregulation, dysbiosis, and pruritus — and how there are differential impacts on vulnerable and displaced populations with AD. It also briefly addresses air pollution, which was not included in the review framework but is impacted by wildfire and other included climatic factors.
 

The Need to Better Track AD, Anticipate Clinical Impact

“Outside of epidemiology, [clinicians and others] may not realize we actually have fairly poor measures of prevalence and severity of AD and disease flare over time,” Dr. Abuabara said. So “improving the ways we can measure this disease and getting more detailed data is important” for assessing the impact of climate changes.

More skin measures should be incorporated into large national health surveys, for one. “Skin doesn’t come to mind as much as diseases like heart disease and diabetes,” she said, and when surveys ask about AD, “they often don’t ask specific enough questions or ask about severity.” The clinical impacts of adverse climatic changes and extreme weather events — sudden therapy interruption, particularly of systemic agents, and delayed treatment, for instance — should be reflected in the planning and provision of dermatology services, Dr. Abuabara and her coauthors wrote.

There are currently no evidence-based recommendations for what patients with AD can do differently when faced with wildfire smoke or other climatic hazards, other than general recommendations, for instance, to reduce exposure to wildfire smoke and aeroallergens, she said in the interview. But “overall, the field has moved to more proactive treatment patterns ... toward providing anticipatory guidance and having individualized treatment plans that give people the tools to be ready to step things up or counteract [flares or worsening] if they need to.”

She and her San Francisco–based coauthors have already experienced the impact of wildfires firsthand. “It was amazing — in the period right after a major wildfire hundreds of miles away from the Bay area, we saw a huge spike in visits for itch and for eczema,” she said, referring to research on AD clinic visits after the 2018 California Camp Fire. “It showed up dramatically in the data,” said Dr. Abuabara, one of the authors of that study.

The new review adds to a growing body of literature documenting health impacts of climate change and advocating for action. In September 2021, more than 230 medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine — though not any dermatology journals — published an editorial calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health.

The following year, a commentary published across four dermatology journals discussed current and future impacts of climate change and urged dermatologists to become more engaged in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change.

More recently, dermatologists have published about the environmental impact of professional practices such as print journals and meeting samples using single-use plastics.

Dr. Abuabara disclosed to Allergy that she is a consultant for TARGET RWE and Amgen and that her institution receives grants for research from Pfizer and LaRoche Posay. Dr. Eichenfield reported serving as a scientific adviser, consultant, and/or study investigator for Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen and other companies. Dr. Wang disclosed that she is an International Eczema Council Fellow with financial support from Abbvie. Other authors had multiple disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Low-dose aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), confirms a large-scale cohort study, which also suggests that the risk reduction is greatest for metastatic disease and in individuals who take the drug for at least 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used several population-based registries to identify individuals aged ≥ 50 years living in Norway between 2014 and 2018, excluding those with a prior history of invasive cancer or who had lived in Norway for less than 6 months before study commencement.
• Sociodemographic information was obtained, as well as low-dose aspirin prescription data to determine the prescription date, number of dispensed packages, and defined daily dose.
• Follow-up began 6 months after entering the cohort and continued until CRC diagnosis, another cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or the end of follow-up on December 31, 2018.
• CRC cases were categorized by site as well as by clinical stage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2,186,390 individuals included, 38,577 (1.8%) were diagnosed with CRC after a median follow-up of 10.9 years. Low-dose aspirin was used at least once by 579,196 (26.5%) individuals.
• Low-dose aspirin use was more common among males, older individuals, those with a lower education or lower income, those of Norwegian origin, and individuals using other medications, including those targeting cardiovascular conditions.
• Compared with never-use, current aspirin use was associated with a lower CRC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87), an association that was more pronounced for metastatic CRC (HR, 0.79) than for regionally advanced (HR, 0.89) and localized disease (HR, 0.93).
• Duration of current aspirin use was also associated with the degree of CRC risk, at HRs of 0.91 for < 3 years, 0.85 for ≥ 3 and < 5 years, and 0.84 for ≥ 5 years.
• It was estimated that aspirin use averted 1073 cases of CRC over the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe that new randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the potential protective effect of aspirin against CRC and to identify subgroups in the population who might benefit the most from the use of aspirin,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Edoardo Botteri, PhD, Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study is limited by its observational nature. Users and nonusers are also “incomparable,” as aspirin is used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Moreover, information was lacking in the registries about “several known risk factors for CRC,” and so the link between aspirin and CRC risk could have been over- or underestimated. Finally, the defined daily dose may not necessarily reflect the dose actually taken by the individual or how often it was taken.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant financial relationships were declared. The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Low-dose aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), confirms a large-scale cohort study, which also suggests that the risk reduction is greatest for metastatic disease and in individuals who take the drug for at least 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used several population-based registries to identify individuals aged ≥ 50 years living in Norway between 2014 and 2018, excluding those with a prior history of invasive cancer or who had lived in Norway for less than 6 months before study commencement.
• Sociodemographic information was obtained, as well as low-dose aspirin prescription data to determine the prescription date, number of dispensed packages, and defined daily dose.
• Follow-up began 6 months after entering the cohort and continued until CRC diagnosis, another cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or the end of follow-up on December 31, 2018.
• CRC cases were categorized by site as well as by clinical stage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2,186,390 individuals included, 38,577 (1.8%) were diagnosed with CRC after a median follow-up of 10.9 years. Low-dose aspirin was used at least once by 579,196 (26.5%) individuals.
• Low-dose aspirin use was more common among males, older individuals, those with a lower education or lower income, those of Norwegian origin, and individuals using other medications, including those targeting cardiovascular conditions.
• Compared with never-use, current aspirin use was associated with a lower CRC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87), an association that was more pronounced for metastatic CRC (HR, 0.79) than for regionally advanced (HR, 0.89) and localized disease (HR, 0.93).
• Duration of current aspirin use was also associated with the degree of CRC risk, at HRs of 0.91 for < 3 years, 0.85 for ≥ 3 and < 5 years, and 0.84 for ≥ 5 years.
• It was estimated that aspirin use averted 1073 cases of CRC over the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe that new randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the potential protective effect of aspirin against CRC and to identify subgroups in the population who might benefit the most from the use of aspirin,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Edoardo Botteri, PhD, Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study is limited by its observational nature. Users and nonusers are also “incomparable,” as aspirin is used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Moreover, information was lacking in the registries about “several known risk factors for CRC,” and so the link between aspirin and CRC risk could have been over- or underestimated. Finally, the defined daily dose may not necessarily reflect the dose actually taken by the individual or how often it was taken.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant financial relationships were declared. The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Low-dose aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), confirms a large-scale cohort study, which also suggests that the risk reduction is greatest for metastatic disease and in individuals who take the drug for at least 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used several population-based registries to identify individuals aged ≥ 50 years living in Norway between 2014 and 2018, excluding those with a prior history of invasive cancer or who had lived in Norway for less than 6 months before study commencement.
• Sociodemographic information was obtained, as well as low-dose aspirin prescription data to determine the prescription date, number of dispensed packages, and defined daily dose.
• Follow-up began 6 months after entering the cohort and continued until CRC diagnosis, another cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or the end of follow-up on December 31, 2018.
• CRC cases were categorized by site as well as by clinical stage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2,186,390 individuals included, 38,577 (1.8%) were diagnosed with CRC after a median follow-up of 10.9 years. Low-dose aspirin was used at least once by 579,196 (26.5%) individuals.
• Low-dose aspirin use was more common among males, older individuals, those with a lower education or lower income, those of Norwegian origin, and individuals using other medications, including those targeting cardiovascular conditions.
• Compared with never-use, current aspirin use was associated with a lower CRC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87), an association that was more pronounced for metastatic CRC (HR, 0.79) than for regionally advanced (HR, 0.89) and localized disease (HR, 0.93).
• Duration of current aspirin use was also associated with the degree of CRC risk, at HRs of 0.91 for < 3 years, 0.85 for ≥ 3 and < 5 years, and 0.84 for ≥ 5 years.
• It was estimated that aspirin use averted 1073 cases of CRC over the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe that new randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the potential protective effect of aspirin against CRC and to identify subgroups in the population who might benefit the most from the use of aspirin,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Edoardo Botteri, PhD, Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study is limited by its observational nature. Users and nonusers are also “incomparable,” as aspirin is used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Moreover, information was lacking in the registries about “several known risk factors for CRC,” and so the link between aspirin and CRC risk could have been over- or underestimated. Finally, the defined daily dose may not necessarily reflect the dose actually taken by the individual or how often it was taken.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant financial relationships were declared. The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Specific microbes may distinguish the pathogenesis of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) from average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC) and could serve as preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic targets.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was drawn from patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary colorectal tumor at a single center from 2000 to 2020.
• yoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, and aoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed after age 60 years. Patients aged between 50 and 60 years at diagnosis were excluded to ensure two distinct cohorts for meaningful comparison.
• Researchers used various gene sequencing technologies to compare tissue samples from 136 patients with yoCRC against samples from 140 patients with aoCRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with yoCRC vs those with aoCRC were more likely to have left-sided (72.8% vs 54.3%), rectal (36.7% vs 25%), and stage IV (28% vs 15%) tumors.
• yoCRC and aoCRC tumors had distinct microbial profiles associated with tumor location, sidedness, and stage, and obesity.
• yoCRC tumors had significantly higher microbial alpha diversity and varied beta diversity than aoCRC tumors.
• yoCRC tumors were enriched with Akkermansia and Bacteroides, whereas aoCRC tumors showed greater relative abundances of Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella.
• In yoCRC, Fusobacterium and Akkermansia abundance correlated with overall survival.

IN PRACTICE:

“[O]ur findings help to comprehensively define the microbial community that may play a role in young-onset colorectal oncogenesis [and] should encourage the evaluation of environmental and lifestyle risk factors that might contribute to microbial dysbiosis in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shimoli V. Barot, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. It was a single-institution retrospective study with limited diversity in terms of race/ethnicity. Smoking and aspirin use were higher among older participants, whereas the yoCRC group had higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy and metastesectomy. Data on factors affecting the microbiome around the time of specimen collection, such as diet, stress, and antibiotic and probiotic use, were limited and not adjusted for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Sondra and Stephen Hardis Chair in Oncology Research. Two coauthors report fees and research funding from industry. Barot and the other coauthors report no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Specific microbes may distinguish the pathogenesis of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) from average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC) and could serve as preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic targets.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was drawn from patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary colorectal tumor at a single center from 2000 to 2020.
• yoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, and aoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed after age 60 years. Patients aged between 50 and 60 years at diagnosis were excluded to ensure two distinct cohorts for meaningful comparison.
• Researchers used various gene sequencing technologies to compare tissue samples from 136 patients with yoCRC against samples from 140 patients with aoCRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with yoCRC vs those with aoCRC were more likely to have left-sided (72.8% vs 54.3%), rectal (36.7% vs 25%), and stage IV (28% vs 15%) tumors.
• yoCRC and aoCRC tumors had distinct microbial profiles associated with tumor location, sidedness, and stage, and obesity.
• yoCRC tumors had significantly higher microbial alpha diversity and varied beta diversity than aoCRC tumors.
• yoCRC tumors were enriched with Akkermansia and Bacteroides, whereas aoCRC tumors showed greater relative abundances of Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella.
• In yoCRC, Fusobacterium and Akkermansia abundance correlated with overall survival.

IN PRACTICE:

“[O]ur findings help to comprehensively define the microbial community that may play a role in young-onset colorectal oncogenesis [and] should encourage the evaluation of environmental and lifestyle risk factors that might contribute to microbial dysbiosis in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shimoli V. Barot, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. It was a single-institution retrospective study with limited diversity in terms of race/ethnicity. Smoking and aspirin use were higher among older participants, whereas the yoCRC group had higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy and metastesectomy. Data on factors affecting the microbiome around the time of specimen collection, such as diet, stress, and antibiotic and probiotic use, were limited and not adjusted for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Sondra and Stephen Hardis Chair in Oncology Research. Two coauthors report fees and research funding from industry. Barot and the other coauthors report no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Specific microbes may distinguish the pathogenesis of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) from average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC) and could serve as preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic targets.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was drawn from patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary colorectal tumor at a single center from 2000 to 2020.
• yoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, and aoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed after age 60 years. Patients aged between 50 and 60 years at diagnosis were excluded to ensure two distinct cohorts for meaningful comparison.
• Researchers used various gene sequencing technologies to compare tissue samples from 136 patients with yoCRC against samples from 140 patients with aoCRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with yoCRC vs those with aoCRC were more likely to have left-sided (72.8% vs 54.3%), rectal (36.7% vs 25%), and stage IV (28% vs 15%) tumors.
• yoCRC and aoCRC tumors had distinct microbial profiles associated with tumor location, sidedness, and stage, and obesity.
• yoCRC tumors had significantly higher microbial alpha diversity and varied beta diversity than aoCRC tumors.
• yoCRC tumors were enriched with Akkermansia and Bacteroides, whereas aoCRC tumors showed greater relative abundances of Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella.
• In yoCRC, Fusobacterium and Akkermansia abundance correlated with overall survival.

IN PRACTICE:

“[O]ur findings help to comprehensively define the microbial community that may play a role in young-onset colorectal oncogenesis [and] should encourage the evaluation of environmental and lifestyle risk factors that might contribute to microbial dysbiosis in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shimoli V. Barot, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. It was a single-institution retrospective study with limited diversity in terms of race/ethnicity. Smoking and aspirin use were higher among older participants, whereas the yoCRC group had higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy and metastesectomy. Data on factors affecting the microbiome around the time of specimen collection, such as diet, stress, and antibiotic and probiotic use, were limited and not adjusted for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Sondra and Stephen Hardis Chair in Oncology Research. Two coauthors report fees and research funding from industry. Barot and the other coauthors report no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Liza Simonsson

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Liza Simonsson

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Liza Simonsson

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Long-term adherence to a plant-based diet was not tied to a greater risk of hip fracture and some plant-based regimens may actually reduce the risk, a large cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United States suggested.

Not all plant-centered regimens are healthful, however, and this study factored dietary quality into risk.

Writing in JAMA Network Open, the study authors compared the lowest to highest quintiles of Plant-Based Diet Index scores. They found the most recent intake of a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) to be associated with a somewhat lower (21%) risk of fracture while the most recent intake of its unhealthy counterpart (uPDI) was linked to a somewhat higher (28%) risk.

“In addition, higher baseline scores in the uPDI were associated with higher risk of hip fracture,” wrote the researchers, led by Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

Plant-based diets, characterized by higher consumption of plant foods and lower or no intake of animal foods, have raised concerns about their potential harm to bone health. In a recent meta-analysis, vegetarians, but particularly vegans with no consumption of any animal food, had a higher fracture risk and lower bone mineral density compared with omnivores.

Another study found that compared with meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians had a higher risk of hip fractures. These analyses, however, did not assess the quality of the plant-based diets.

Courtesy Dr. Sotos Prieto

“We hypothesized that the differences in the quality of the plant-based diets — whole grains, fruits, and vegetables vs refined carbohydrates or snacks, which are both plant-based but very different, would be important in the association for the risk of hip fracture,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said in an interview.
 

Study details

Her study drew on data from 70,285 postmenopausal White women who were in the US Nurses’ Health Study from 1984 through 2014; data were analyzed from Jan. 1 to July 31, 2023.

The mean age of the nurses was 54.92 years, and 2038 cases of hip fracture were reported during the study over as long as 30 years of follow-up.

Healthy plant foods included whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, and tea or coffee and received positive scores, whereas less healthy plant foods such as fruit juices, sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes, sweets, or desserts and animal foods received reversed scores. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected by self-reported questionnaires.

Individuals with higher hPDI scores were leaner, more physically active, less likely to be smokers, and more likely to use vitamin and calcium supplements. Not surprisingly, they also had higher intakes of dietary calcium and healthy plant foods and had lower intake of less healthy plant foods. “It’s plausible that reverse causation may account for the risk associations, as individuals with underlying health conditions that predisposed them to higher fracture risk may have changed their diet,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “In addition, baseline diet may reflect diet early on, which could be an important predictor of bone mineral density when there was more active bone turnover.”

Lack of information precluded adjustment for the use of anti-osteoporotic medication.

Neither the hPDI, with a hazard ratio (HR) for highest vs lowest quintile of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) nor the uPDI, with an HR for highest vs lowest quintile of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20) for diet adherence over the long term was associated with hip fracture risk.

For recent dietary intake in the highest vs lowest quintiles, however, the hPDI was associated with a 21% lower risk of hip fracture: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .02 for trend). In contrast, the uPDI was associated with a 28% higher risk: HR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.51; P = .008 for trend).

Future studies in other populations are needed to confirm the results and enhance their generalizability, Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “Investigating the temporal dynamics of dietary patterns and their effects by examining how recent dietary changes may impact health outcomes over different timeframes is important.” In the meantime, people wishing to follow a plant-based diet should make sure it features high-quality foods.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, State Secretary of Research, Development and Innovation of Spain, and the European Research Funds and European Social Fund, the Agencia Estatal de Investigación, the National Institutes of Health, and a Ramón y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. A coauthor reported a patent pending. No other disclosures were reported.

Long-term adherence to a plant-based diet was not tied to a greater risk of hip fracture and some plant-based regimens may actually reduce the risk, a large cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United States suggested.

Not all plant-centered regimens are healthful, however, and this study factored dietary quality into risk.

Writing in JAMA Network Open, the study authors compared the lowest to highest quintiles of Plant-Based Diet Index scores. They found the most recent intake of a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) to be associated with a somewhat lower (21%) risk of fracture while the most recent intake of its unhealthy counterpart (uPDI) was linked to a somewhat higher (28%) risk.

“In addition, higher baseline scores in the uPDI were associated with higher risk of hip fracture,” wrote the researchers, led by Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

Plant-based diets, characterized by higher consumption of plant foods and lower or no intake of animal foods, have raised concerns about their potential harm to bone health. In a recent meta-analysis, vegetarians, but particularly vegans with no consumption of any animal food, had a higher fracture risk and lower bone mineral density compared with omnivores.

Another study found that compared with meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians had a higher risk of hip fractures. These analyses, however, did not assess the quality of the plant-based diets.

Courtesy Dr. Sotos Prieto

“We hypothesized that the differences in the quality of the plant-based diets — whole grains, fruits, and vegetables vs refined carbohydrates or snacks, which are both plant-based but very different, would be important in the association for the risk of hip fracture,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said in an interview.
 

Study details

Her study drew on data from 70,285 postmenopausal White women who were in the US Nurses’ Health Study from 1984 through 2014; data were analyzed from Jan. 1 to July 31, 2023.

The mean age of the nurses was 54.92 years, and 2038 cases of hip fracture were reported during the study over as long as 30 years of follow-up.

Healthy plant foods included whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, and tea or coffee and received positive scores, whereas less healthy plant foods such as fruit juices, sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes, sweets, or desserts and animal foods received reversed scores. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected by self-reported questionnaires.

Individuals with higher hPDI scores were leaner, more physically active, less likely to be smokers, and more likely to use vitamin and calcium supplements. Not surprisingly, they also had higher intakes of dietary calcium and healthy plant foods and had lower intake of less healthy plant foods. “It’s plausible that reverse causation may account for the risk associations, as individuals with underlying health conditions that predisposed them to higher fracture risk may have changed their diet,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “In addition, baseline diet may reflect diet early on, which could be an important predictor of bone mineral density when there was more active bone turnover.”

Lack of information precluded adjustment for the use of anti-osteoporotic medication.

Neither the hPDI, with a hazard ratio (HR) for highest vs lowest quintile of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) nor the uPDI, with an HR for highest vs lowest quintile of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20) for diet adherence over the long term was associated with hip fracture risk.

For recent dietary intake in the highest vs lowest quintiles, however, the hPDI was associated with a 21% lower risk of hip fracture: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .02 for trend). In contrast, the uPDI was associated with a 28% higher risk: HR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.51; P = .008 for trend).

Future studies in other populations are needed to confirm the results and enhance their generalizability, Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “Investigating the temporal dynamics of dietary patterns and their effects by examining how recent dietary changes may impact health outcomes over different timeframes is important.” In the meantime, people wishing to follow a plant-based diet should make sure it features high-quality foods.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, State Secretary of Research, Development and Innovation of Spain, and the European Research Funds and European Social Fund, the Agencia Estatal de Investigación, the National Institutes of Health, and a Ramón y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. A coauthor reported a patent pending. No other disclosures were reported.

Long-term adherence to a plant-based diet was not tied to a greater risk of hip fracture and some plant-based regimens may actually reduce the risk, a large cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United States suggested.

Not all plant-centered regimens are healthful, however, and this study factored dietary quality into risk.

Writing in JAMA Network Open, the study authors compared the lowest to highest quintiles of Plant-Based Diet Index scores. They found the most recent intake of a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) to be associated with a somewhat lower (21%) risk of fracture while the most recent intake of its unhealthy counterpart (uPDI) was linked to a somewhat higher (28%) risk.

“In addition, higher baseline scores in the uPDI were associated with higher risk of hip fracture,” wrote the researchers, led by Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

Plant-based diets, characterized by higher consumption of plant foods and lower or no intake of animal foods, have raised concerns about their potential harm to bone health. In a recent meta-analysis, vegetarians, but particularly vegans with no consumption of any animal food, had a higher fracture risk and lower bone mineral density compared with omnivores.

Another study found that compared with meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians had a higher risk of hip fractures. These analyses, however, did not assess the quality of the plant-based diets.

Courtesy Dr. Sotos Prieto

“We hypothesized that the differences in the quality of the plant-based diets — whole grains, fruits, and vegetables vs refined carbohydrates or snacks, which are both plant-based but very different, would be important in the association for the risk of hip fracture,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said in an interview.
 

Study details

Her study drew on data from 70,285 postmenopausal White women who were in the US Nurses’ Health Study from 1984 through 2014; data were analyzed from Jan. 1 to July 31, 2023.

The mean age of the nurses was 54.92 years, and 2038 cases of hip fracture were reported during the study over as long as 30 years of follow-up.

Healthy plant foods included whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, and tea or coffee and received positive scores, whereas less healthy plant foods such as fruit juices, sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes, sweets, or desserts and animal foods received reversed scores. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected by self-reported questionnaires.

Individuals with higher hPDI scores were leaner, more physically active, less likely to be smokers, and more likely to use vitamin and calcium supplements. Not surprisingly, they also had higher intakes of dietary calcium and healthy plant foods and had lower intake of less healthy plant foods. “It’s plausible that reverse causation may account for the risk associations, as individuals with underlying health conditions that predisposed them to higher fracture risk may have changed their diet,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “In addition, baseline diet may reflect diet early on, which could be an important predictor of bone mineral density when there was more active bone turnover.”

Lack of information precluded adjustment for the use of anti-osteoporotic medication.

Neither the hPDI, with a hazard ratio (HR) for highest vs lowest quintile of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) nor the uPDI, with an HR for highest vs lowest quintile of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20) for diet adherence over the long term was associated with hip fracture risk.

For recent dietary intake in the highest vs lowest quintiles, however, the hPDI was associated with a 21% lower risk of hip fracture: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .02 for trend). In contrast, the uPDI was associated with a 28% higher risk: HR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.51; P = .008 for trend).

Future studies in other populations are needed to confirm the results and enhance their generalizability, Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “Investigating the temporal dynamics of dietary patterns and their effects by examining how recent dietary changes may impact health outcomes over different timeframes is important.” In the meantime, people wishing to follow a plant-based diet should make sure it features high-quality foods.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, State Secretary of Research, Development and Innovation of Spain, and the European Research Funds and European Social Fund, the Agencia Estatal de Investigación, the National Institutes of Health, and a Ramón y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. A coauthor reported a patent pending. No other disclosures were reported.