Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.

Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.

Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.

“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.

The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
 

Widely prescribed

Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”

Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.

The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.

The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.

Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.

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

Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.

Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.

Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.

“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.

The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
 

Widely prescribed

Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”

Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.

The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.

The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.

Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.

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

Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.

Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.

Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.

“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.

The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
 

Widely prescribed

Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”

Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.

The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.

The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.

Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.

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

Notable advances in breast cancer, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023, are discussed by Dr Kathy Miller, Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis. 

She begins with two studies looking at PARP inhibitors in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. 

The TALAVE study suggested that talazoparib induction followed by talazoparib plus avelumab could enhance the benefits of PARP inhibition. In contrast, a study of olaparib vs olaparib plus atezolizumab suggested that the combination offered few clinical improvements at the cost of additional toxicities. 

Dr Miller next discusses the combination of olaparib and the novel agent sapacitabine in BRCA-mutated breast cancer. Although hematologic toxicities were an issue in this small trial, some patients experienced prolonged benefits. 

Finally, she presents early results with a whole tumor cell therapeutic vaccine, before examining some of the future challenges around antibody-drug conjugates. 

--

Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Kathy D. Miller, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serves on independent Data Monitoring Committees for ongoing trials for: Merck; Genentech/Roche; AstraZeneca; Celcuity 

Notable advances in breast cancer, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023, are discussed by Dr Kathy Miller, Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis. 

She begins with two studies looking at PARP inhibitors in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. 

The TALAVE study suggested that talazoparib induction followed by talazoparib plus avelumab could enhance the benefits of PARP inhibition. In contrast, a study of olaparib vs olaparib plus atezolizumab suggested that the combination offered few clinical improvements at the cost of additional toxicities. 

Dr Miller next discusses the combination of olaparib and the novel agent sapacitabine in BRCA-mutated breast cancer. Although hematologic toxicities were an issue in this small trial, some patients experienced prolonged benefits. 

Finally, she presents early results with a whole tumor cell therapeutic vaccine, before examining some of the future challenges around antibody-drug conjugates. 

--

Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Kathy D. Miller, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serves on independent Data Monitoring Committees for ongoing trials for: Merck; Genentech/Roche; AstraZeneca; Celcuity 

Notable advances in breast cancer, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023, are discussed by Dr Kathy Miller, Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis. 

She begins with two studies looking at PARP inhibitors in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. 

The TALAVE study suggested that talazoparib induction followed by talazoparib plus avelumab could enhance the benefits of PARP inhibition. In contrast, a study of olaparib vs olaparib plus atezolizumab suggested that the combination offered few clinical improvements at the cost of additional toxicities. 

Dr Miller next discusses the combination of olaparib and the novel agent sapacitabine in BRCA-mutated breast cancer. Although hematologic toxicities were an issue in this small trial, some patients experienced prolonged benefits. 

Finally, she presents early results with a whole tumor cell therapeutic vaccine, before examining some of the future challenges around antibody-drug conjugates. 

--

Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Kathy D. Miller, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serves on independent Data Monitoring Committees for ongoing trials for: Merck; Genentech/Roche; AstraZeneca; Celcuity 

Dr Kathy Miller of Indiana University Health in Indianapolis discusses key takeaways in early breast cancer from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023. 

She begins with a novel imaging agent that allows surgeons to visualize residual disease during lumpectomy and reduce the risk for positive margins. It is now being investigated in patients who undergo neoadjuvant therapy. 

Next, Dr Miller focuses on a study of skin toxicity in patients undergoing fractionated radiotherapy, which found that rates varied widely by race/ethnicity. 

She also examines the implications of these findings and other research presented at AACR addressing the effect of genetic ancestry on the biology of breast cancers. 

Finally, Dr Miller looks at a study of disease progression in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which found that 80% of cases were the result of clonal recurrences of residual cells left behind at the time of treatment. 

--

Kathy D. Miller, MD, Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Kathy D. Miller, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve on independent Data Monitoring Committees for ongoing trials for: Merck; Genentech/Roche; AstraZeneca; Celcuity 

Dr Kathy Miller of Indiana University Health in Indianapolis discusses key takeaways in early breast cancer from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023. 

She begins with a novel imaging agent that allows surgeons to visualize residual disease during lumpectomy and reduce the risk for positive margins. It is now being investigated in patients who undergo neoadjuvant therapy. 

Next, Dr Miller focuses on a study of skin toxicity in patients undergoing fractionated radiotherapy, which found that rates varied widely by race/ethnicity. 

She also examines the implications of these findings and other research presented at AACR addressing the effect of genetic ancestry on the biology of breast cancers. 

Finally, Dr Miller looks at a study of disease progression in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which found that 80% of cases were the result of clonal recurrences of residual cells left behind at the time of treatment. 

--

Kathy D. Miller, MD, Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Kathy D. Miller, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve on independent Data Monitoring Committees for ongoing trials for: Merck; Genentech/Roche; AstraZeneca; Celcuity 

Dr Kathy Miller of Indiana University Health in Indianapolis discusses key takeaways in early breast cancer from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023. 

She begins with a novel imaging agent that allows surgeons to visualize residual disease during lumpectomy and reduce the risk for positive margins. It is now being investigated in patients who undergo neoadjuvant therapy. 

Next, Dr Miller focuses on a study of skin toxicity in patients undergoing fractionated radiotherapy, which found that rates varied widely by race/ethnicity. 

She also examines the implications of these findings and other research presented at AACR addressing the effect of genetic ancestry on the biology of breast cancers. 

Finally, Dr Miller looks at a study of disease progression in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which found that 80% of cases were the result of clonal recurrences of residual cells left behind at the time of treatment. 

--

Kathy D. Miller, MD, Ballvé Lantero Professor of Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Kathy D. Miller, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve on independent Data Monitoring Committees for ongoing trials for: Merck; Genentech/Roche; AstraZeneca; Celcuity 

Air pollution may promote the growth of lung cancer in people who have never smoked by activating normally inactive cells in the lung that harbor cancer-causing mutations, new research indicates.

“This work adds to our understanding of the mechanism by which air pollutants promote the earliest stages of lung cancer, particularly in people who have never smoked,” William Hill, PhD, co–first author and postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute, London, told this news organization.

The study, which assessed human lung samples and mouse cancer models, was published online in Nature.

Although smoking remains the chief risk factor for lung cancer, outdoor air pollution causes roughly 1 in 10 cases of lung cancer in the United Kingdom, according to Cancer Research UK. In 2019, about 300,000 lung cancer deaths around the world were attributed to exposure to ambient particulate matter measuring ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5).

While the link between air pollution and lung cancer is well known, the mechanism that explains this link has been harder to pinpoint.

One theory is that environmental carcinogens such as tobacco smoke and UV light cause mutations by damaging DNA directly. However, recent data have hinted that that may not be the case.

In the current study, Dr. Hill and colleagues proposed that, rather than act on DNA directly, air pollutants might promote inflammatory changes in the lung tissue that wake up inactive cancer-causing mutations, which accumulate naturally in these cells as people age. This idea lines up with a decades-old theory of cancer promotion, according to which tumorigenesis is a two-step process: The initial step induces mutations in healthy cells, after which a promoter step triggers cancer development.

The study team focused on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers and light smokers, and on environmental particulate matter measuring ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5), which is fine enough to travel into the lungs and is associated with lung cancer risk.

Dr. Hill and colleagues analyzed data from over 400,000 people in three countries. They compared rates of EGFR-mutant lung cancer cases in areas with different levels of PM_2.5 pollution. The team found a significant association between PM_2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in England, South Korea, and Taiwan.

The researchers then studied genetically engineered mouse models of lung adenocarcinoma to determine whether particulate matter exposure could trigger the development of lung tumors. In these functional mouse models, air pollutants led to an influx of macrophages in the lung and the release of interleukin-1beta, a key mediator of the inflammatory response.

This process ultimately “fuels tumorigenesis,” the study team concluded.

The team also found that treatment with an anti-interleukin-1beta antibody during PM_2.5 exposure reduced lung cancer promotion by air pollutants.

A detailed mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively.

Overall, “our data suggest a mechanistic and causative link between air pollutants and lung cancer,” the study team wrote.

The study demonstrates that air pollution rouses cells in the lung that carry cancer-causing mutations, “encouraging them to grow and potentially form tumors,” Dr. Hill said. “Understanding the biology could help identify high-risk individuals and, in the future, may open avenues to prevent cancer caused by breathing polluted air.”

In a related article in Nature, Allan Balmain, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said these results have “major implications for how to think about cancer prevention.”

“There is presently nothing that can be done to remove the mutated cells that accumulate in normal tissues, but if there is a promotion stage that influences the rate of cancer development, then inhibition of this stage might be an effective way to prevent cancer,” Dr. Balmain said.

Another prevention option, Dr. Hill noted, is to reduce the levels of air pollution. “Our study provides a mandate for the reduction of PM_2.5 emissions globally,” he said.

Dr. Hill also believes the findings may extend beyond lung cancer.

“It’s possible that this inflammatory pathway could be involved in other types of cancer and that it could be triggered by other environmental carcinogens,” he said. “But further research is needed to find out which other environmental carcinogens might trigger this pathway, as well as which other parts of the body this may occur in.”

Funding for the study was provided by Cancer Research UK, the European Research Council, the Francis Crick Institute, the Mark Foundation, the Lung Cancer Research Foundation, Rosetrees Trust, and the Ruth Strauss Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Balmain has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Air pollution may promote the growth of lung cancer in people who have never smoked by activating normally inactive cells in the lung that harbor cancer-causing mutations, new research indicates.

“This work adds to our understanding of the mechanism by which air pollutants promote the earliest stages of lung cancer, particularly in people who have never smoked,” William Hill, PhD, co–first author and postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute, London, told this news organization.

The study, which assessed human lung samples and mouse cancer models, was published online in Nature.

Although smoking remains the chief risk factor for lung cancer, outdoor air pollution causes roughly 1 in 10 cases of lung cancer in the United Kingdom, according to Cancer Research UK. In 2019, about 300,000 lung cancer deaths around the world were attributed to exposure to ambient particulate matter measuring ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5).

While the link between air pollution and lung cancer is well known, the mechanism that explains this link has been harder to pinpoint.

One theory is that environmental carcinogens such as tobacco smoke and UV light cause mutations by damaging DNA directly. However, recent data have hinted that that may not be the case.

In the current study, Dr. Hill and colleagues proposed that, rather than act on DNA directly, air pollutants might promote inflammatory changes in the lung tissue that wake up inactive cancer-causing mutations, which accumulate naturally in these cells as people age. This idea lines up with a decades-old theory of cancer promotion, according to which tumorigenesis is a two-step process: The initial step induces mutations in healthy cells, after which a promoter step triggers cancer development.

The study team focused on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers and light smokers, and on environmental particulate matter measuring ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5), which is fine enough to travel into the lungs and is associated with lung cancer risk.

Dr. Hill and colleagues analyzed data from over 400,000 people in three countries. They compared rates of EGFR-mutant lung cancer cases in areas with different levels of PM_2.5 pollution. The team found a significant association between PM_2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in England, South Korea, and Taiwan.

The researchers then studied genetically engineered mouse models of lung adenocarcinoma to determine whether particulate matter exposure could trigger the development of lung tumors. In these functional mouse models, air pollutants led to an influx of macrophages in the lung and the release of interleukin-1beta, a key mediator of the inflammatory response.

This process ultimately “fuels tumorigenesis,” the study team concluded.

The team also found that treatment with an anti-interleukin-1beta antibody during PM_2.5 exposure reduced lung cancer promotion by air pollutants.

A detailed mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively.

Overall, “our data suggest a mechanistic and causative link between air pollutants and lung cancer,” the study team wrote.

The study demonstrates that air pollution rouses cells in the lung that carry cancer-causing mutations, “encouraging them to grow and potentially form tumors,” Dr. Hill said. “Understanding the biology could help identify high-risk individuals and, in the future, may open avenues to prevent cancer caused by breathing polluted air.”

In a related article in Nature, Allan Balmain, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said these results have “major implications for how to think about cancer prevention.”

“There is presently nothing that can be done to remove the mutated cells that accumulate in normal tissues, but if there is a promotion stage that influences the rate of cancer development, then inhibition of this stage might be an effective way to prevent cancer,” Dr. Balmain said.

Another prevention option, Dr. Hill noted, is to reduce the levels of air pollution. “Our study provides a mandate for the reduction of PM_2.5 emissions globally,” he said.

Dr. Hill also believes the findings may extend beyond lung cancer.

“It’s possible that this inflammatory pathway could be involved in other types of cancer and that it could be triggered by other environmental carcinogens,” he said. “But further research is needed to find out which other environmental carcinogens might trigger this pathway, as well as which other parts of the body this may occur in.”

Funding for the study was provided by Cancer Research UK, the European Research Council, the Francis Crick Institute, the Mark Foundation, the Lung Cancer Research Foundation, Rosetrees Trust, and the Ruth Strauss Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Balmain has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Air pollution may promote the growth of lung cancer in people who have never smoked by activating normally inactive cells in the lung that harbor cancer-causing mutations, new research indicates.

“This work adds to our understanding of the mechanism by which air pollutants promote the earliest stages of lung cancer, particularly in people who have never smoked,” William Hill, PhD, co–first author and postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute, London, told this news organization.

The study, which assessed human lung samples and mouse cancer models, was published online in Nature.

Although smoking remains the chief risk factor for lung cancer, outdoor air pollution causes roughly 1 in 10 cases of lung cancer in the United Kingdom, according to Cancer Research UK. In 2019, about 300,000 lung cancer deaths around the world were attributed to exposure to ambient particulate matter measuring ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5).

While the link between air pollution and lung cancer is well known, the mechanism that explains this link has been harder to pinpoint.

One theory is that environmental carcinogens such as tobacco smoke and UV light cause mutations by damaging DNA directly. However, recent data have hinted that that may not be the case.

In the current study, Dr. Hill and colleagues proposed that, rather than act on DNA directly, air pollutants might promote inflammatory changes in the lung tissue that wake up inactive cancer-causing mutations, which accumulate naturally in these cells as people age. This idea lines up with a decades-old theory of cancer promotion, according to which tumorigenesis is a two-step process: The initial step induces mutations in healthy cells, after which a promoter step triggers cancer development.

The study team focused on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers and light smokers, and on environmental particulate matter measuring ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5), which is fine enough to travel into the lungs and is associated with lung cancer risk.

Dr. Hill and colleagues analyzed data from over 400,000 people in three countries. They compared rates of EGFR-mutant lung cancer cases in areas with different levels of PM_2.5 pollution. The team found a significant association between PM_2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in England, South Korea, and Taiwan.

The researchers then studied genetically engineered mouse models of lung adenocarcinoma to determine whether particulate matter exposure could trigger the development of lung tumors. In these functional mouse models, air pollutants led to an influx of macrophages in the lung and the release of interleukin-1beta, a key mediator of the inflammatory response.

This process ultimately “fuels tumorigenesis,” the study team concluded.

The team also found that treatment with an anti-interleukin-1beta antibody during PM_2.5 exposure reduced lung cancer promotion by air pollutants.

A detailed mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively.

Overall, “our data suggest a mechanistic and causative link between air pollutants and lung cancer,” the study team wrote.

The study demonstrates that air pollution rouses cells in the lung that carry cancer-causing mutations, “encouraging them to grow and potentially form tumors,” Dr. Hill said. “Understanding the biology could help identify high-risk individuals and, in the future, may open avenues to prevent cancer caused by breathing polluted air.”

In a related article in Nature, Allan Balmain, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said these results have “major implications for how to think about cancer prevention.”

“There is presently nothing that can be done to remove the mutated cells that accumulate in normal tissues, but if there is a promotion stage that influences the rate of cancer development, then inhibition of this stage might be an effective way to prevent cancer,” Dr. Balmain said.

Another prevention option, Dr. Hill noted, is to reduce the levels of air pollution. “Our study provides a mandate for the reduction of PM_2.5 emissions globally,” he said.

Dr. Hill also believes the findings may extend beyond lung cancer.

“It’s possible that this inflammatory pathway could be involved in other types of cancer and that it could be triggered by other environmental carcinogens,” he said. “But further research is needed to find out which other environmental carcinogens might trigger this pathway, as well as which other parts of the body this may occur in.”

Funding for the study was provided by Cancer Research UK, the European Research Council, the Francis Crick Institute, the Mark Foundation, the Lung Cancer Research Foundation, Rosetrees Trust, and the Ruth Strauss Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Balmain has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Nine lifestyle medicine practitioners describe how they safely and effectively deprescribe glucose-lowering medications after patients demonstrate a reduced need for such medications following lifestyle changes.

The report by Michael D. Bradley, PharmD, and colleagues was recently published as a feature article in Clinical Diabetes.

“Lifestyle medicine uses an evidence-based lifestyle therapeutic approach to treat lifestyle-related chronic disease,” they wrote, and it includes “a whole-food, predominantly plant-based eating plan, regular physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky substances, and positive social connection.”

“Medication deprescribing,” senior author Micaela C. Karlsen, PhD, said in an email, “is a planned and supervised process of dose reduction or discontinuation of a medication that may be causing harm, or no longer providing benefit to a patient.” 

According to the authors, the article “is the first account published of the medication de-escalation methods used by lifestyle medicine providers when patients demonstrate a decreased need for pharmacotherapy.” It “supports the feasibility of de-escalating glucose-lowering medications in this context and provides pilot data on protocols from individual practitioners experienced in deprescribing glucose-lowering medications.”

The study was not designed to cover deprescribing glucose-lowering medications following weight loss and diabetes remission after bariatric surgery.

“A key takeaway [from the current study] for general practitioners and endocrinologists is that, while deprescribing is already known to be beneficial to reduce polypharmacy, it may be appropriate following lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Karlsen, who is senior director of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in Chesterfield, Md.

“The protocols presented can serve as a model for how to do so,” she continued.

The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology recommend lifestyle optimization as part of medical care for type 2 diabetes.

According to the ACLM, “remission of type 2 diabetes should be a clinical goal and may be achieved with a whole-food, plant-based dietary pattern coupled with moderate exercise,” the researchers noted.

“Remission,” they wrote, “can be defined as attainment of a [hemoglobin] A1c less than 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for the specific purpose of lowering blood glucose.”

In ACLM’s recent expert consensus statement on dietary interventions for type 2 diabetes remission, which was also endorsed by AACE, supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, panel members agreed that remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes, and a high-intensity dietary intervention can result in remission, Dr. Karlsen said.

To avoid hypoglycemia when deprescribing antiglycemic drugs, medications known to cause hypoglycemia – notably sulfonylurea and insulin – are often deprescribed first, she noted.

“Our biggest hope,” she said, “is that [type 2 diabetes] remission may come to the forefront as a clinical goal in treatment and that other organizations will more strongly emphasize lifestyle in standards of care.”

“We hope that clinicians reading this paper will be made aware that de-escalation of glucose-lowering medications is feasible, is a desirable outcome, and can be necessary in a lifestyle medicine context,” she added.

Further research is needed to prospectively track the likelihood of type 2 diabetes remission, factors that predict successful remission, and decision-making protocols followed by practitioners, Dr. Karlsen said.
 

Deprescribing antiglycemic meds in lifestyle medicine

Researchers at the Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, and Université de Montréal provide algorithms for deprescribing antihyperglycemic medications specifically for older individuals.  

In the current study, the authors conducted individual, 30-minute to 1-hour interviews with nine lifestyle medicine practitioners to document their protocols for deprescribing glucose-lowering medications after lifestyle interventions with a goal of potential type 2 diabetes remission.

Three practitioners reported medication deprescribing in an intensive therapeutic lifestyle program (longer, more frequent treatment with greater monitoring). The others provide deprescribing in a nonintensive program (similar to primary care practice) or both.

Deprescribing is necessary when using intensive therapeutic lifestyle change, as substantial and rapid drops in glucose levels aren’t adjusted for, the authors noted.

Most practitioners work with a team of allied health care providers.

During the deprescribing process, most protocols require that patients get a basic or comprehensive metabolic panel of blood tests, with variations in laboratory tests for A1c, C-peptide, and renal function.

Most practitioners recommend a target blood glucose less than 120 mg/dL for further deprescribing.

Currently, there is no clinical guidance for use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during medication de-escalation, the authors note.

Most practitioners reported they consider patient expenses associated with CGM and third-party payor coverage in their decision-making.

Most practitioners prefer to deprescribe sulfonylureas, insulin, and other medications known to cause hypoglycemia first.

Conversely, most prefer to defer deprescribing medications that have demonstrated cardiovascular and/or renal benefits (that is, glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), as well as those with a less severe adverse effect profile (that is, metformin and GLP-1 receptor agonists) until after other medications are deprescribed.

The study was funded by the Ardmore Institute of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine lifestyle medicine practitioners describe how they safely and effectively deprescribe glucose-lowering medications after patients demonstrate a reduced need for such medications following lifestyle changes.

The report by Michael D. Bradley, PharmD, and colleagues was recently published as a feature article in Clinical Diabetes.

“Lifestyle medicine uses an evidence-based lifestyle therapeutic approach to treat lifestyle-related chronic disease,” they wrote, and it includes “a whole-food, predominantly plant-based eating plan, regular physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky substances, and positive social connection.”

“Medication deprescribing,” senior author Micaela C. Karlsen, PhD, said in an email, “is a planned and supervised process of dose reduction or discontinuation of a medication that may be causing harm, or no longer providing benefit to a patient.” 

According to the authors, the article “is the first account published of the medication de-escalation methods used by lifestyle medicine providers when patients demonstrate a decreased need for pharmacotherapy.” It “supports the feasibility of de-escalating glucose-lowering medications in this context and provides pilot data on protocols from individual practitioners experienced in deprescribing glucose-lowering medications.”

The study was not designed to cover deprescribing glucose-lowering medications following weight loss and diabetes remission after bariatric surgery.

“A key takeaway [from the current study] for general practitioners and endocrinologists is that, while deprescribing is already known to be beneficial to reduce polypharmacy, it may be appropriate following lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Karlsen, who is senior director of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in Chesterfield, Md.

“The protocols presented can serve as a model for how to do so,” she continued.

The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology recommend lifestyle optimization as part of medical care for type 2 diabetes.

According to the ACLM, “remission of type 2 diabetes should be a clinical goal and may be achieved with a whole-food, plant-based dietary pattern coupled with moderate exercise,” the researchers noted.

“Remission,” they wrote, “can be defined as attainment of a [hemoglobin] A1c less than 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for the specific purpose of lowering blood glucose.”

In ACLM’s recent expert consensus statement on dietary interventions for type 2 diabetes remission, which was also endorsed by AACE, supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, panel members agreed that remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes, and a high-intensity dietary intervention can result in remission, Dr. Karlsen said.

To avoid hypoglycemia when deprescribing antiglycemic drugs, medications known to cause hypoglycemia – notably sulfonylurea and insulin – are often deprescribed first, she noted.

“Our biggest hope,” she said, “is that [type 2 diabetes] remission may come to the forefront as a clinical goal in treatment and that other organizations will more strongly emphasize lifestyle in standards of care.”

“We hope that clinicians reading this paper will be made aware that de-escalation of glucose-lowering medications is feasible, is a desirable outcome, and can be necessary in a lifestyle medicine context,” she added.

Further research is needed to prospectively track the likelihood of type 2 diabetes remission, factors that predict successful remission, and decision-making protocols followed by practitioners, Dr. Karlsen said.
 

Deprescribing antiglycemic meds in lifestyle medicine

Researchers at the Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, and Université de Montréal provide algorithms for deprescribing antihyperglycemic medications specifically for older individuals.  

In the current study, the authors conducted individual, 30-minute to 1-hour interviews with nine lifestyle medicine practitioners to document their protocols for deprescribing glucose-lowering medications after lifestyle interventions with a goal of potential type 2 diabetes remission.

Three practitioners reported medication deprescribing in an intensive therapeutic lifestyle program (longer, more frequent treatment with greater monitoring). The others provide deprescribing in a nonintensive program (similar to primary care practice) or both.

Deprescribing is necessary when using intensive therapeutic lifestyle change, as substantial and rapid drops in glucose levels aren’t adjusted for, the authors noted.

Most practitioners work with a team of allied health care providers.

During the deprescribing process, most protocols require that patients get a basic or comprehensive metabolic panel of blood tests, with variations in laboratory tests for A1c, C-peptide, and renal function.

Most practitioners recommend a target blood glucose less than 120 mg/dL for further deprescribing.

Currently, there is no clinical guidance for use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during medication de-escalation, the authors note.

Most practitioners reported they consider patient expenses associated with CGM and third-party payor coverage in their decision-making.

Most practitioners prefer to deprescribe sulfonylureas, insulin, and other medications known to cause hypoglycemia first.

Conversely, most prefer to defer deprescribing medications that have demonstrated cardiovascular and/or renal benefits (that is, glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), as well as those with a less severe adverse effect profile (that is, metformin and GLP-1 receptor agonists) until after other medications are deprescribed.

The study was funded by the Ardmore Institute of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine lifestyle medicine practitioners describe how they safely and effectively deprescribe glucose-lowering medications after patients demonstrate a reduced need for such medications following lifestyle changes.

The report by Michael D. Bradley, PharmD, and colleagues was recently published as a feature article in Clinical Diabetes.

“Lifestyle medicine uses an evidence-based lifestyle therapeutic approach to treat lifestyle-related chronic disease,” they wrote, and it includes “a whole-food, predominantly plant-based eating plan, regular physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky substances, and positive social connection.”

“Medication deprescribing,” senior author Micaela C. Karlsen, PhD, said in an email, “is a planned and supervised process of dose reduction or discontinuation of a medication that may be causing harm, or no longer providing benefit to a patient.” 

According to the authors, the article “is the first account published of the medication de-escalation methods used by lifestyle medicine providers when patients demonstrate a decreased need for pharmacotherapy.” It “supports the feasibility of de-escalating glucose-lowering medications in this context and provides pilot data on protocols from individual practitioners experienced in deprescribing glucose-lowering medications.”

The study was not designed to cover deprescribing glucose-lowering medications following weight loss and diabetes remission after bariatric surgery.

“A key takeaway [from the current study] for general practitioners and endocrinologists is that, while deprescribing is already known to be beneficial to reduce polypharmacy, it may be appropriate following lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Karlsen, who is senior director of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in Chesterfield, Md.

“The protocols presented can serve as a model for how to do so,” she continued.

The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology recommend lifestyle optimization as part of medical care for type 2 diabetes.

According to the ACLM, “remission of type 2 diabetes should be a clinical goal and may be achieved with a whole-food, plant-based dietary pattern coupled with moderate exercise,” the researchers noted.

“Remission,” they wrote, “can be defined as attainment of a [hemoglobin] A1c less than 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for the specific purpose of lowering blood glucose.”

In ACLM’s recent expert consensus statement on dietary interventions for type 2 diabetes remission, which was also endorsed by AACE, supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, panel members agreed that remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes, and a high-intensity dietary intervention can result in remission, Dr. Karlsen said.

To avoid hypoglycemia when deprescribing antiglycemic drugs, medications known to cause hypoglycemia – notably sulfonylurea and insulin – are often deprescribed first, she noted.

“Our biggest hope,” she said, “is that [type 2 diabetes] remission may come to the forefront as a clinical goal in treatment and that other organizations will more strongly emphasize lifestyle in standards of care.”

“We hope that clinicians reading this paper will be made aware that de-escalation of glucose-lowering medications is feasible, is a desirable outcome, and can be necessary in a lifestyle medicine context,” she added.

Further research is needed to prospectively track the likelihood of type 2 diabetes remission, factors that predict successful remission, and decision-making protocols followed by practitioners, Dr. Karlsen said.
 

Deprescribing antiglycemic meds in lifestyle medicine

Researchers at the Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, and Université de Montréal provide algorithms for deprescribing antihyperglycemic medications specifically for older individuals.  

In the current study, the authors conducted individual, 30-minute to 1-hour interviews with nine lifestyle medicine practitioners to document their protocols for deprescribing glucose-lowering medications after lifestyle interventions with a goal of potential type 2 diabetes remission.

Three practitioners reported medication deprescribing in an intensive therapeutic lifestyle program (longer, more frequent treatment with greater monitoring). The others provide deprescribing in a nonintensive program (similar to primary care practice) or both.

Deprescribing is necessary when using intensive therapeutic lifestyle change, as substantial and rapid drops in glucose levels aren’t adjusted for, the authors noted.

Most practitioners work with a team of allied health care providers.

During the deprescribing process, most protocols require that patients get a basic or comprehensive metabolic panel of blood tests, with variations in laboratory tests for A1c, C-peptide, and renal function.

Most practitioners recommend a target blood glucose less than 120 mg/dL for further deprescribing.

Currently, there is no clinical guidance for use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during medication de-escalation, the authors note.

Most practitioners reported they consider patient expenses associated with CGM and third-party payor coverage in their decision-making.

Most practitioners prefer to deprescribe sulfonylureas, insulin, and other medications known to cause hypoglycemia first.

Conversely, most prefer to defer deprescribing medications that have demonstrated cardiovascular and/or renal benefits (that is, glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), as well as those with a less severe adverse effect profile (that is, metformin and GLP-1 receptor agonists) until after other medications are deprescribed.

The study was funded by the Ardmore Institute of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – A novel levodopa/carbidopa delivery system fitted to a retainer worn in the mouth appears to achieve the advantages of continuous drug delivery without the need for surgery or external pumps, according to an early clinical experience described in the Emerging Science session at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Icahn School of Medicine

On this device, the attenuation of levodopa fluctuations “translated into dramatic improvements in clinical behavior, including highly significant reductions in OFF time and an increase in ON time with no dyskinesias,” reported C. Warren Olanow, MD, who is a chairman emeritus of the department of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and now an employee of the company developing this new device.
 

A novel strategy

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reductions in the troughs of plasma levodopa associated with oral dosing result in longer ON time with fewer dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow, who explained this has led to strategies for numerous strategies to achieve continuous delivery. A device that delivers levodopa into the stomach through a surgically implanted catheter has already received regulatory approval. Other devices delivering levodopa subcutaneously are in development, but Dr. Olanow said each of these has had limitations.

“The problem with these approaches is they are associated with potentially serious side effects and they require the patient to wear a cumbersome device,” he explained. Relative to the subcutaneous delivery systems, which have been associated with injection site reactions that include painful nodules, and the surgically implanted devices, which also require an external pump, the latest strategy avoids both disadvantages.

Called DopaFuse, the experimental device is designed to deliver the levodopa and carbidopa into the mouth through a micropump within a wearable retainer. Dr. Olanow said that previous experimental studies demonstrated that small doses of levodopa delivered by mouth to the gastrointestinal system reduce levodopa plasma variability. This early clinical study supports that premise. Levodopa delivered into the mouth by way of a propellant in the retainer-mounted pump improved clinical endpoints.
 

Encouraging trial results

In the study, 16 patients between the ages of 30 and 75 with Parkinson’s disease were enrolled. On day 1, they received an oral dose of levodopa/carbidopa consistent with their current treatment. On day 2, levodopa/carbidopa was delivered through the retainer-mounted device at equivalent doses. On day 3, they received a single morning oral dose and the received the remainder of their levodopa/carbidopa regimen through the device. On days 4 to 14, they received treatment in the same schedule as day 3.

When pharmacokinetics of levodopa on day 3 were compared with those on day 1, the fluctuation index and coefficient of levodopa concentration variability was reduced to a degree that was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). This, in turn, correlated with “striking” reductions in OFF time with equally statistically significant improvement in ON time and ON time without dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow.

Relative to an OFF time of 3.2 hours on day 1, the OFF time of 1.6 hours on day 3 represented a 50% reduction (P < .0001). ON time improved from 12.8 hours to 14.5 hours (P < .001). ON time without dyskinesias improved numerically from 8.8 hours to 9.6 hours.

“There were also improvements in activities of daily living when patients were on DopaFuse, which is a hard endpoint to reach in a study with such a small sample size,” Dr. Olanow reported.

There were no serious adverse events. Three patients reported vomiting and two patients each reported headache, but these events were mild and all resolved within a day. Three patients reported buccal lesions, but these also resolved within a day.

“Some patients reported trouble with speaking in the beginning but at the end of the study, patients were reporting that it was easier to speak because of the motor improvements,” Dr. Olanow said.

Overall, the device was well tolerated by the subjects, providing the evidence for the next stages of clinical studies, reported Dr. Olanow.

“If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will allow us to deliver levodopa without motor complications, without need for a surgical procedure, and without the risk of subcutaneous lesions,” Dr. Olanow said.
 

More delivery strategies are needed

This device is in an early phase of development, but several specialists in Parkinson’s disease agreed that there is a need for more strategies to provide continuous levodopa in patients with advancing symptoms. Stuart Isaacson, MD, director, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center of Boca Raton, Fla., is among them.

“Novel delivery devices that can provide more continuous levodopa delivery would be an important therapeutic advance,” Dr. Isaacson said. He called levodopa “the cornerstone of treatment through the course of Parkinson’s disease,” but more physiologic dosing in advancing disease has been a challenge.

“While there are many therapies currently available to manage OFF time, many people living with Parkinson’s disease continue to spend only half of their waking day with good ON time,” he added.

The currently approved method of delivering continuous levodopa through a surgically placed catheter into the gastrointestinal system is effective, but has limitations, according to Aaron L. Ellenbogen, MD, a neurologist at Beaumont Hospital, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the challenges with the current treatment landscape of Parkinson’s disease is that medication can be absorbed variably through the gastrointestinal system,” he said. “As the disease progresses, this often becomes more troublesome.” Although this new device is likely to share this issue, Dr. Ellenbogen said that several devices might be useful to match patients with the one that works best for them.

Dr. Olanow is the founder and CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, through which he also serves as chief medical officer of SynAgile, the company developing DopaFuse. Dr. Isaacson has financial relationships with more than 30 companies, including those that produce levodopa and levodopa delivery systems. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva.

BOSTON – A novel levodopa/carbidopa delivery system fitted to a retainer worn in the mouth appears to achieve the advantages of continuous drug delivery without the need for surgery or external pumps, according to an early clinical experience described in the Emerging Science session at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Icahn School of Medicine

On this device, the attenuation of levodopa fluctuations “translated into dramatic improvements in clinical behavior, including highly significant reductions in OFF time and an increase in ON time with no dyskinesias,” reported C. Warren Olanow, MD, who is a chairman emeritus of the department of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and now an employee of the company developing this new device.
 

A novel strategy

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reductions in the troughs of plasma levodopa associated with oral dosing result in longer ON time with fewer dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow, who explained this has led to strategies for numerous strategies to achieve continuous delivery. A device that delivers levodopa into the stomach through a surgically implanted catheter has already received regulatory approval. Other devices delivering levodopa subcutaneously are in development, but Dr. Olanow said each of these has had limitations.

“The problem with these approaches is they are associated with potentially serious side effects and they require the patient to wear a cumbersome device,” he explained. Relative to the subcutaneous delivery systems, which have been associated with injection site reactions that include painful nodules, and the surgically implanted devices, which also require an external pump, the latest strategy avoids both disadvantages.

Called DopaFuse, the experimental device is designed to deliver the levodopa and carbidopa into the mouth through a micropump within a wearable retainer. Dr. Olanow said that previous experimental studies demonstrated that small doses of levodopa delivered by mouth to the gastrointestinal system reduce levodopa plasma variability. This early clinical study supports that premise. Levodopa delivered into the mouth by way of a propellant in the retainer-mounted pump improved clinical endpoints.
 

Encouraging trial results

In the study, 16 patients between the ages of 30 and 75 with Parkinson’s disease were enrolled. On day 1, they received an oral dose of levodopa/carbidopa consistent with their current treatment. On day 2, levodopa/carbidopa was delivered through the retainer-mounted device at equivalent doses. On day 3, they received a single morning oral dose and the received the remainder of their levodopa/carbidopa regimen through the device. On days 4 to 14, they received treatment in the same schedule as day 3.

When pharmacokinetics of levodopa on day 3 were compared with those on day 1, the fluctuation index and coefficient of levodopa concentration variability was reduced to a degree that was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). This, in turn, correlated with “striking” reductions in OFF time with equally statistically significant improvement in ON time and ON time without dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow.

Relative to an OFF time of 3.2 hours on day 1, the OFF time of 1.6 hours on day 3 represented a 50% reduction (P < .0001). ON time improved from 12.8 hours to 14.5 hours (P < .001). ON time without dyskinesias improved numerically from 8.8 hours to 9.6 hours.

“There were also improvements in activities of daily living when patients were on DopaFuse, which is a hard endpoint to reach in a study with such a small sample size,” Dr. Olanow reported.

There were no serious adverse events. Three patients reported vomiting and two patients each reported headache, but these events were mild and all resolved within a day. Three patients reported buccal lesions, but these also resolved within a day.

“Some patients reported trouble with speaking in the beginning but at the end of the study, patients were reporting that it was easier to speak because of the motor improvements,” Dr. Olanow said.

Overall, the device was well tolerated by the subjects, providing the evidence for the next stages of clinical studies, reported Dr. Olanow.

“If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will allow us to deliver levodopa without motor complications, without need for a surgical procedure, and without the risk of subcutaneous lesions,” Dr. Olanow said.
 

More delivery strategies are needed

This device is in an early phase of development, but several specialists in Parkinson’s disease agreed that there is a need for more strategies to provide continuous levodopa in patients with advancing symptoms. Stuart Isaacson, MD, director, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center of Boca Raton, Fla., is among them.

“Novel delivery devices that can provide more continuous levodopa delivery would be an important therapeutic advance,” Dr. Isaacson said. He called levodopa “the cornerstone of treatment through the course of Parkinson’s disease,” but more physiologic dosing in advancing disease has been a challenge.

“While there are many therapies currently available to manage OFF time, many people living with Parkinson’s disease continue to spend only half of their waking day with good ON time,” he added.

The currently approved method of delivering continuous levodopa through a surgically placed catheter into the gastrointestinal system is effective, but has limitations, according to Aaron L. Ellenbogen, MD, a neurologist at Beaumont Hospital, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the challenges with the current treatment landscape of Parkinson’s disease is that medication can be absorbed variably through the gastrointestinal system,” he said. “As the disease progresses, this often becomes more troublesome.” Although this new device is likely to share this issue, Dr. Ellenbogen said that several devices might be useful to match patients with the one that works best for them.

Dr. Olanow is the founder and CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, through which he also serves as chief medical officer of SynAgile, the company developing DopaFuse. Dr. Isaacson has financial relationships with more than 30 companies, including those that produce levodopa and levodopa delivery systems. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva.

BOSTON – A novel levodopa/carbidopa delivery system fitted to a retainer worn in the mouth appears to achieve the advantages of continuous drug delivery without the need for surgery or external pumps, according to an early clinical experience described in the Emerging Science session at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Icahn School of Medicine

On this device, the attenuation of levodopa fluctuations “translated into dramatic improvements in clinical behavior, including highly significant reductions in OFF time and an increase in ON time with no dyskinesias,” reported C. Warren Olanow, MD, who is a chairman emeritus of the department of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and now an employee of the company developing this new device.
 

A novel strategy

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reductions in the troughs of plasma levodopa associated with oral dosing result in longer ON time with fewer dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow, who explained this has led to strategies for numerous strategies to achieve continuous delivery. A device that delivers levodopa into the stomach through a surgically implanted catheter has already received regulatory approval. Other devices delivering levodopa subcutaneously are in development, but Dr. Olanow said each of these has had limitations.

“The problem with these approaches is they are associated with potentially serious side effects and they require the patient to wear a cumbersome device,” he explained. Relative to the subcutaneous delivery systems, which have been associated with injection site reactions that include painful nodules, and the surgically implanted devices, which also require an external pump, the latest strategy avoids both disadvantages.

Called DopaFuse, the experimental device is designed to deliver the levodopa and carbidopa into the mouth through a micropump within a wearable retainer. Dr. Olanow said that previous experimental studies demonstrated that small doses of levodopa delivered by mouth to the gastrointestinal system reduce levodopa plasma variability. This early clinical study supports that premise. Levodopa delivered into the mouth by way of a propellant in the retainer-mounted pump improved clinical endpoints.
 

Encouraging trial results

In the study, 16 patients between the ages of 30 and 75 with Parkinson’s disease were enrolled. On day 1, they received an oral dose of levodopa/carbidopa consistent with their current treatment. On day 2, levodopa/carbidopa was delivered through the retainer-mounted device at equivalent doses. On day 3, they received a single morning oral dose and the received the remainder of their levodopa/carbidopa regimen through the device. On days 4 to 14, they received treatment in the same schedule as day 3.

When pharmacokinetics of levodopa on day 3 were compared with those on day 1, the fluctuation index and coefficient of levodopa concentration variability was reduced to a degree that was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). This, in turn, correlated with “striking” reductions in OFF time with equally statistically significant improvement in ON time and ON time without dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow.

Relative to an OFF time of 3.2 hours on day 1, the OFF time of 1.6 hours on day 3 represented a 50% reduction (P < .0001). ON time improved from 12.8 hours to 14.5 hours (P < .001). ON time without dyskinesias improved numerically from 8.8 hours to 9.6 hours.

“There were also improvements in activities of daily living when patients were on DopaFuse, which is a hard endpoint to reach in a study with such a small sample size,” Dr. Olanow reported.

There were no serious adverse events. Three patients reported vomiting and two patients each reported headache, but these events were mild and all resolved within a day. Three patients reported buccal lesions, but these also resolved within a day.

“Some patients reported trouble with speaking in the beginning but at the end of the study, patients were reporting that it was easier to speak because of the motor improvements,” Dr. Olanow said.

Overall, the device was well tolerated by the subjects, providing the evidence for the next stages of clinical studies, reported Dr. Olanow.

“If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will allow us to deliver levodopa without motor complications, without need for a surgical procedure, and without the risk of subcutaneous lesions,” Dr. Olanow said.
 

More delivery strategies are needed

This device is in an early phase of development, but several specialists in Parkinson’s disease agreed that there is a need for more strategies to provide continuous levodopa in patients with advancing symptoms. Stuart Isaacson, MD, director, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center of Boca Raton, Fla., is among them.

“Novel delivery devices that can provide more continuous levodopa delivery would be an important therapeutic advance,” Dr. Isaacson said. He called levodopa “the cornerstone of treatment through the course of Parkinson’s disease,” but more physiologic dosing in advancing disease has been a challenge.

“While there are many therapies currently available to manage OFF time, many people living with Parkinson’s disease continue to spend only half of their waking day with good ON time,” he added.

The currently approved method of delivering continuous levodopa through a surgically placed catheter into the gastrointestinal system is effective, but has limitations, according to Aaron L. Ellenbogen, MD, a neurologist at Beaumont Hospital, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the challenges with the current treatment landscape of Parkinson’s disease is that medication can be absorbed variably through the gastrointestinal system,” he said. “As the disease progresses, this often becomes more troublesome.” Although this new device is likely to share this issue, Dr. Ellenbogen said that several devices might be useful to match patients with the one that works best for them.

Dr. Olanow is the founder and CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, through which he also serves as chief medical officer of SynAgile, the company developing DopaFuse. Dr. Isaacson has financial relationships with more than 30 companies, including those that produce levodopa and levodopa delivery systems. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva.

WASHINGTON – Six in 10 primary care pediatricians reported always screening adolescents for substance use, but less than half reported using a standardized instrument, Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Yale University

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Uniformity in screening is lacking

Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.

The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).

A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.

A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.

Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).

The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.

At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.

“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
 

Data highlight regional resource gaps

The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.

However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.

The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

WASHINGTON – Six in 10 primary care pediatricians reported always screening adolescents for substance use, but less than half reported using a standardized instrument, Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Yale University

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Uniformity in screening is lacking

Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.

The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).

A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.

A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.

Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).

The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.

At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.

“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
 

Data highlight regional resource gaps

The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.

However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.

The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

WASHINGTON – Six in 10 primary care pediatricians reported always screening adolescents for substance use, but less than half reported using a standardized instrument, Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Yale University

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Uniformity in screening is lacking

Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.

The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).

A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.

A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.

Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).

The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.

At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.

“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
 

Data highlight regional resource gaps

The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.

However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.

The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Older women with high levels of physical activity showed twice the risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib) over 10 years as they did for cardiac disease or stroke, based on data from 46 cross-country skiers.

Although previous research suggests that women derive greater health benefits from endurance sports, compared with men, women are generally underrepresented in sports cardiology research, and most previous studies have focused on younger women, Marius Myrstad, MD, of Baerum Hospital, Gjettum, Norway, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Previous research also has shown an increased risk of AFib in male endurance athletes, but similar data on women are lacking, Dr. Myrstad said.

The researchers reviewed data from the Birkebeiner Ageing Study, a study of Norwegian cross-country skiers aged 65 years and older who were followed for 10 years. The participants were competitors in the 2009/2010 Birkebeiner race, a 54-km cross country ski race in Norway.

Participants responded to a questionnaire addressing cardiovascular disease risk factors, exercise habits, and other health issues. The mean age at baseline was 67.5 year. A total of 34 participants (76%) were available for follow-up visits in 2014, and 36 attended a follow-up visit in 2020. Cumulative exposure to exercise was 26 years.

A total of 86% of the women reported moderate to vigorous exercise in the past year at baseline; 61% did so at the 2020 follow-up visit. One of the participants died during the study period.

“The baseline prevalence of cardiovascular conditions was very low,” Dr. Myrstad noted.

However, despite a low prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, the risk of AFib in the study population was twice as high as for other cardiac diseases and stroke (15.6%, 7.1%, and 7.1%, respectively).

The mechanism of action for the increased AFib remains unclear, but the current study highlights the need for large, prospective studies of female athletes to address not only AFib, but also exercise-induced cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular health in general, said Dr. Myrstad.

The findings were limited by the small sample size and use of self-reports, Dr. Myrstad said, and more research is needed to clarify the association between increased AFib and high-level athletic activity in women.

“We should strive to close the gap between female and male athletes in sports cardiology research,” he added.

Consider the big picture of AFib risk

This study is important because of the growing recognition that atrial fibrillation may be a preventable disease, said Gregory Marcus, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

“Various behaviors or exposures that are under the control of the individual patient may reveal especially powerful means to help reduce risk,” he added.

Dr. Marcus said he was not surprised by the current study findings, as they reflect those of other studies suggesting a heightened risk for atrial fibrillation associated with very excessive exercise. However, the study was limited by the relatively small size and lack of a comparison group, he said. In addition, “The study was observational, and therefore the possibility that factors other than the predictor of interest, in this case intensive endurance exercise, were truly causal of atrial fibrillation could not be excluded,” he noted.

“It is very important to place this specialized analysis in the greater context of the full weight of evidence related to physical activity and atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Marcus. “Specifically, when it comes to the general public and the great majority of patients we see in clinical practice, encouraging more physical activity is generally the best approach to reduce risks of atrial fibrillation,” he said. “It appears to be only in extraordinarily rigorous and prolonged endurance exercise that higher risks of atrial fibrillation may result,” he noted.

However, “Exercise also has many other benefits, related to overall cardiovascular health, brain health, bone health, and even cancer risk reduction, such that, even among the highly trained endurance athletes, the net benefit versus risk remains unknown,” he said. 

“While the risk of atrial fibrillation in these highly trained endurance athletes was higher than expected, it still occurred in the minority,” Dr. Marcus said. “Therefore, there are certainly other factors yet to be identified that influence this heightened atrial fibrillation risk, and future research aimed at elucidating these other factors may help identify individuals more or less prone to atrial fibrillation or other behaviors that can help mitigate that risk.”

Dr. Myrstad disclosed lecture fees from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Marcus disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson and Johnson and InCarda, and holding equity as a cofounder of InCarda.

Older women with high levels of physical activity showed twice the risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib) over 10 years as they did for cardiac disease or stroke, based on data from 46 cross-country skiers.

Although previous research suggests that women derive greater health benefits from endurance sports, compared with men, women are generally underrepresented in sports cardiology research, and most previous studies have focused on younger women, Marius Myrstad, MD, of Baerum Hospital, Gjettum, Norway, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Previous research also has shown an increased risk of AFib in male endurance athletes, but similar data on women are lacking, Dr. Myrstad said.

The researchers reviewed data from the Birkebeiner Ageing Study, a study of Norwegian cross-country skiers aged 65 years and older who were followed for 10 years. The participants were competitors in the 2009/2010 Birkebeiner race, a 54-km cross country ski race in Norway.

Participants responded to a questionnaire addressing cardiovascular disease risk factors, exercise habits, and other health issues. The mean age at baseline was 67.5 year. A total of 34 participants (76%) were available for follow-up visits in 2014, and 36 attended a follow-up visit in 2020. Cumulative exposure to exercise was 26 years.

A total of 86% of the women reported moderate to vigorous exercise in the past year at baseline; 61% did so at the 2020 follow-up visit. One of the participants died during the study period.

“The baseline prevalence of cardiovascular conditions was very low,” Dr. Myrstad noted.

However, despite a low prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, the risk of AFib in the study population was twice as high as for other cardiac diseases and stroke (15.6%, 7.1%, and 7.1%, respectively).

The mechanism of action for the increased AFib remains unclear, but the current study highlights the need for large, prospective studies of female athletes to address not only AFib, but also exercise-induced cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular health in general, said Dr. Myrstad.

The findings were limited by the small sample size and use of self-reports, Dr. Myrstad said, and more research is needed to clarify the association between increased AFib and high-level athletic activity in women.

“We should strive to close the gap between female and male athletes in sports cardiology research,” he added.

Consider the big picture of AFib risk

This study is important because of the growing recognition that atrial fibrillation may be a preventable disease, said Gregory Marcus, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

“Various behaviors or exposures that are under the control of the individual patient may reveal especially powerful means to help reduce risk,” he added.

Dr. Marcus said he was not surprised by the current study findings, as they reflect those of other studies suggesting a heightened risk for atrial fibrillation associated with very excessive exercise. However, the study was limited by the relatively small size and lack of a comparison group, he said. In addition, “The study was observational, and therefore the possibility that factors other than the predictor of interest, in this case intensive endurance exercise, were truly causal of atrial fibrillation could not be excluded,” he noted.

“It is very important to place this specialized analysis in the greater context of the full weight of evidence related to physical activity and atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Marcus. “Specifically, when it comes to the general public and the great majority of patients we see in clinical practice, encouraging more physical activity is generally the best approach to reduce risks of atrial fibrillation,” he said. “It appears to be only in extraordinarily rigorous and prolonged endurance exercise that higher risks of atrial fibrillation may result,” he noted.

However, “Exercise also has many other benefits, related to overall cardiovascular health, brain health, bone health, and even cancer risk reduction, such that, even among the highly trained endurance athletes, the net benefit versus risk remains unknown,” he said. 

“While the risk of atrial fibrillation in these highly trained endurance athletes was higher than expected, it still occurred in the minority,” Dr. Marcus said. “Therefore, there are certainly other factors yet to be identified that influence this heightened atrial fibrillation risk, and future research aimed at elucidating these other factors may help identify individuals more or less prone to atrial fibrillation or other behaviors that can help mitigate that risk.”

Dr. Myrstad disclosed lecture fees from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Marcus disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson and Johnson and InCarda, and holding equity as a cofounder of InCarda.

Older women with high levels of physical activity showed twice the risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib) over 10 years as they did for cardiac disease or stroke, based on data from 46 cross-country skiers.

Although previous research suggests that women derive greater health benefits from endurance sports, compared with men, women are generally underrepresented in sports cardiology research, and most previous studies have focused on younger women, Marius Myrstad, MD, of Baerum Hospital, Gjettum, Norway, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Previous research also has shown an increased risk of AFib in male endurance athletes, but similar data on women are lacking, Dr. Myrstad said.

The researchers reviewed data from the Birkebeiner Ageing Study, a study of Norwegian cross-country skiers aged 65 years and older who were followed for 10 years. The participants were competitors in the 2009/2010 Birkebeiner race, a 54-km cross country ski race in Norway.

Participants responded to a questionnaire addressing cardiovascular disease risk factors, exercise habits, and other health issues. The mean age at baseline was 67.5 year. A total of 34 participants (76%) were available for follow-up visits in 2014, and 36 attended a follow-up visit in 2020. Cumulative exposure to exercise was 26 years.

A total of 86% of the women reported moderate to vigorous exercise in the past year at baseline; 61% did so at the 2020 follow-up visit. One of the participants died during the study period.

“The baseline prevalence of cardiovascular conditions was very low,” Dr. Myrstad noted.

However, despite a low prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, the risk of AFib in the study population was twice as high as for other cardiac diseases and stroke (15.6%, 7.1%, and 7.1%, respectively).

The mechanism of action for the increased AFib remains unclear, but the current study highlights the need for large, prospective studies of female athletes to address not only AFib, but also exercise-induced cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular health in general, said Dr. Myrstad.

The findings were limited by the small sample size and use of self-reports, Dr. Myrstad said, and more research is needed to clarify the association between increased AFib and high-level athletic activity in women.

“We should strive to close the gap between female and male athletes in sports cardiology research,” he added.

Consider the big picture of AFib risk

This study is important because of the growing recognition that atrial fibrillation may be a preventable disease, said Gregory Marcus, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

“Various behaviors or exposures that are under the control of the individual patient may reveal especially powerful means to help reduce risk,” he added.

Dr. Marcus said he was not surprised by the current study findings, as they reflect those of other studies suggesting a heightened risk for atrial fibrillation associated with very excessive exercise. However, the study was limited by the relatively small size and lack of a comparison group, he said. In addition, “The study was observational, and therefore the possibility that factors other than the predictor of interest, in this case intensive endurance exercise, were truly causal of atrial fibrillation could not be excluded,” he noted.

“It is very important to place this specialized analysis in the greater context of the full weight of evidence related to physical activity and atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Marcus. “Specifically, when it comes to the general public and the great majority of patients we see in clinical practice, encouraging more physical activity is generally the best approach to reduce risks of atrial fibrillation,” he said. “It appears to be only in extraordinarily rigorous and prolonged endurance exercise that higher risks of atrial fibrillation may result,” he noted.

However, “Exercise also has many other benefits, related to overall cardiovascular health, brain health, bone health, and even cancer risk reduction, such that, even among the highly trained endurance athletes, the net benefit versus risk remains unknown,” he said. 

“While the risk of atrial fibrillation in these highly trained endurance athletes was higher than expected, it still occurred in the minority,” Dr. Marcus said. “Therefore, there are certainly other factors yet to be identified that influence this heightened atrial fibrillation risk, and future research aimed at elucidating these other factors may help identify individuals more or less prone to atrial fibrillation or other behaviors that can help mitigate that risk.”

Dr. Myrstad disclosed lecture fees from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Marcus disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson and Johnson and InCarda, and holding equity as a cofounder of InCarda.