Treating GERD: Lifestyle Modifications vs Medication

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/08/2025 - 17:21

Dear colleagues,

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common reason for referral to gastroenterology. It affects a broad cross-section of our population and is often managed through a combination of lifestyle modifications and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, in the era of PPIs, we must ask: Are lifestyle changes still necessary? And were they ever truly effective?

While PPIs are highly effective, concerns about their potential side effects frequently make headlines. Moreover, the financial burden of lifelong PPI use is a growing consideration. In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Brijesh B. Patel and Dr. Juan D. Gomez Cifuentes explore these questions. Dr. Gomez Cifuentes highlights the benefits of lifestyle changes and identifies which strategies have proved most effective in his practice. Dr. Patel examines the ubiquitous use of PPIs and the challenges of sustaining adherence to lifestyle modifications. We hope these discussions will spark new ideas for managing GERD in your own practice. 

ketwaroo_g_avinash_tx_web_0._etoc
Dr. Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo



We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Do Lifestyle Changes Still Apply in the Treatment of GERD?

BY JUAN D. GOMEZ CIFUENTES, MD

Lifestyle changes are an essential part of managing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Increasingly, patients are asking about non-medication approaches to control their symptoms. These lifestyle modifications can be categorized into four main areas: 1) Weight loss, the cornerstone intervention, with significant symptom improvement observed after losing as little as 1.7 BMI points. 2) Dietary modifications, which includes both the traditional avoidance of trigger foods and the newer focus on a diet low in simple carbohydrates. 3) Bedtime adjustments, strategies that include elevating the head of the bed, sleeping on the left side, using anti-reflux pillows, and avoiding late-night meals. 4) Tobacco cessation, a key measure for reducing GERD symptoms and promoting overall health. I routinely discuss these changes with my patients, as they not only help manage GERD but also foster healthy habits and have a positive impact beyond the gastrointestinal tract.

Dr. Juan D. Gomez Cifuentes

Weight loss is the most impactful lifestyle intervention for GERD. Research shows a clear linear improvement in symptoms with weight reduction. Traditionally, losing 10% of body weight is a widely accepted goal, extrapolated from other obesity-associated conditions. A reduction in 3.5 points of BMI led to significant symptom improvement in landmark studies but also a modest reduction of 1.7 BMI points has been shown to provide symptom relief.1 Abdominal circumference is another key metric used to track progress, as central obesity rather than BMI alone is strongly linked with GERD. Goals are typically set at less than 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women. Patients using GLP-1 agonists should be informed that these medications may temporarily worsen GERD symptoms due to delayed gastric emptying, however in the long-term these symptoms are expected to improve once significant weight loss is achieved.

Food triggers vary among individuals, with common culprits including fatty meals, spicy foods, chocolate, tomato sauce, citrus fruits, and carbonated beverages. Patients tend to overemphasize diet elimination based on triggers and engage in strict diets. Patients are frequently afraid of these foods causing direct damage to the esophageal mucosa but the hypothesis is that these triggers worsen GERD by increasing transient relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter. The evidence behind this and diet elimination based on triggers has always been weak. In my practice, I encourage patients to follow a diet low in simple carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are present in highly processed food, the average western diet contains ~140 g/day. In a trial, a diet low in simple sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides < 62 g/day) without reducing total daily calories, objectively improved total acid exposure time in pH study.2

Thanks to gravity, nocturnal GERD symptoms are the culprit of many restless nights in these patients. I recommend avoiding food 3 hours before lying down. Since the stomach empties approximately 90% of its contents after 4 hours, waiting longer is not recommended and may result in hunger, making it harder to fall asleep. Sleeping on the left side, which takes advantage of the gastric anatomy, has proved to objectively decrease nocturnal acid exposure time, though some patients may find it challenging to maintain this position all night.3

Elevating the head of the bed is another effective intervention, but it must involve raising the upper body from the waist. Patients should avoid stacking ordinary pillows as this will only elevate the neck and place the body in an unnatural position for sleeping. The most effective strategies are putting blocks/bricks under the feet of the bed, using a bed wedge between the mattress and the box spring or using an adjustable bed frame. There are two types of pillows that have been shown to improve nocturnal GERD symptoms. The classic wedge pillows and the more expensive Medcline reflux relief system®. The Medcline pillow has a dual mechanism that elevates the upper body but also keeps the body on the left side position.4

Tobacco cessation is strongly recommended. Tobacco worsens GERD symptoms by reducing the lower esophageal sphincter pressure and decreasing saliva production which is one of the key components of the normal esophageal acid barrier. Moreover, it is a known risk factor for esophageal cancer. Alcohol has a variety of negative health impacts and decreasing alcohol intake is advised; however, the link between alcohol and GERD symptoms is less robust, especially in patients with low occasional consumption.

In summary, lifestyle modifications play a pivotal role in managing GERD symptoms, offering patients effective, non-pharmacologic strategies to complement medical treatments. Weight loss remains the cornerstone, with even modest reductions in BMI showing significant symptom relief. Dietary adjustments, particularly adopting a low-simple-carbohydrate diet, provide an evidence-based approach. Various bedtime interventions are available to improve nocturnal GERD symptoms. Finally, tobacco cessation is essential, not only for GERD symptom relief but also for overall health. By integrating these lifestyle changes into their routine, patients can improve GERD symptoms while building healthy habits.

Dr. Gomez Cifuentes is vice-chair in the section of gastroenterology at Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico. He declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Ness-Jensen E et al. Lifestyle Intervention in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;14(2):175-82.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.176.

2. Gu C et al. The Effects of Modifying Amount and Type of Dietary Carbohydrate on Esophageal Acid Exposure Time and Esophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Oct 1;117(10):1655-1667. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001889.

3. Schuitenmaker JM et al. Associations Between Sleep Position and Nocturnal Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Study Using Concurrent Monitoring of Sleep Position and Esophageal pH and Impedance. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Feb 1;117(2):346-351. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001588.

4. Person E et al. A Novel Sleep Positioning Device Reduces Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;49(8):655-9. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000359.

Medical Therapy Is the Cornerstone of Effective GERD Treatment

BY BRIJESH B. PATEL, MD

Today, I saw Mr. S in the office for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). He has been on a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and has implemented several lifestyle modifications to manage his reflux. He shared his frustrations, saying, “Doctor, I’ve tried changing my diet, sleeping in a recliner, and adjusting the timing of my meals. I’m practically not enjoying food anymore, and these lifestyle changes have affected my quality of life. Despite all this, I still wake up in the middle of the night with a ‘horrible taste’ in my mouth, and it’s ruining my sleep.”

Dr. Brijesh B. Patel

Later that day, during a discussion with my trainees, one posed an important question: “What about lifestyle measures in the treatment of GERD?” This is a common query in both clinical and academic settings. GERD, with a prevalence estimated at ~20%, is often underreported as many patients begin self-medicating with over-the-counter acid suppressive therapies before seeking medical care. For gastroenterologists, PPIs, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and now potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) form the cornerstone of GERD management.

When I lecture medical students, residents, and fellows about GERD, I emphasize a standard approach: initiating an 8- to 12-week trial of PPIs followed by reassessment. I also stress the importance of combining medical therapy with lifestyle measures. However, the question remains: How adherent are our patients to these lifestyle changes? Similarly, how effectively are trainees integrating the value of lifestyle modifications into their practice? As an academic gastroenterologist, I can teach the theory, but is it being translated into real-world patient care?

The advent of PPIs has been a game changer for managing GERD symptoms and preventing disease progression. PPIs are the backbone of treatment in both gastroenterology and primary care, and they have profoundly improved patients’ quality of life. Most of my patients who present with GERD — whether due to uncontrolled reflux or acid exposure — have already been on a trial of PPIs before seeing me. My role often involves optimizing their timing of PPI administration, addressing incorrect usage, and reinforcing the importance of adherence. In some cases, I incorporate H2RAs as adjunctive therapy for patients who fail to respond adequately to PPIs, particularly when objective disease activity is confirmed through pH studies. These studies also highlight how challenging it is for many patients to maintain a refluxogenic-free lifestyle.

Lifestyle modifications should supplement and support GERD management. Regardless of medical specialty, lifestyle measures should be the first line of treatment. However, adherence and effectiveness vary widely. In reality, achieving sustained weight loss, meal timing adjustments, and dietary modifications (e.g., eliminating trigger foods like red wine, chocolate, coffee, and tomato-based sauces) is a significant challenge for patients. While these measures can reduce the need for PPIs in some cases, they are rarely sufficient as standalone treatments. Until lifestyle modifications are consistently and sustainably incorporated into daily routines, acid-suppressive therapy will remain the mainstay of GERD management.

Turning to newer therapies, PCABs are now FDA-approved for treating GERD. Early efficacy data suggest that PCABs are non-inferior to PPIs, with promising results in managing LA Class C and D esophagitis and maintaining symptom-free days. However, like PPIs, PCABs are associated with potential adverse effects, including C. difficile colitis, impacts on bone health, renal impairment, and mineral deficiencies. While these risks must be carefully discussed with patients, the benefits of medical therapy far outweigh the risks, especially for those with erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, or a high-risk profile for esophageal cancer. In such cases, medical therapies provide superior disease control compared to lifestyle measures, supported by both subjective and objective data.

Managing GERD requires a multipronged approach. Relying solely on lifestyle measures rarely provides complete benefit, as restrictive dietary regimens are difficult to sustain long term. Like many, I can maintain a restrictive diet temporarily but find it unsustainable over time. Conversely, adherence to daily or twice-daily medications tends to be much higher than compliance with multi-level lifestyle changes (e.g., restrictive diets, weight loss, and trigger-food avoidance).

Our therapeutic arsenal for GERD continues to expand, enabling more effective management of patients with uncontrolled acid reflux. While I will continue to counsel patients and educate trainees on the value of lifestyle modifications, I emphasize the importance of adherence to timely medical therapy — whether with PPIs, H2RAs, or PCABs — as the cornerstone of effective GERD treatment.

Dr. Patel is associate program director in the division of digestive diseases & nutrition, at USF Health, Tampa, Fla. He declares no conflicts of interest.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Dear colleagues,

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common reason for referral to gastroenterology. It affects a broad cross-section of our population and is often managed through a combination of lifestyle modifications and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, in the era of PPIs, we must ask: Are lifestyle changes still necessary? And were they ever truly effective?

While PPIs are highly effective, concerns about their potential side effects frequently make headlines. Moreover, the financial burden of lifelong PPI use is a growing consideration. In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Brijesh B. Patel and Dr. Juan D. Gomez Cifuentes explore these questions. Dr. Gomez Cifuentes highlights the benefits of lifestyle changes and identifies which strategies have proved most effective in his practice. Dr. Patel examines the ubiquitous use of PPIs and the challenges of sustaining adherence to lifestyle modifications. We hope these discussions will spark new ideas for managing GERD in your own practice. 

ketwaroo_g_avinash_tx_web_0._etoc
Dr. Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo



We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Do Lifestyle Changes Still Apply in the Treatment of GERD?

BY JUAN D. GOMEZ CIFUENTES, MD

Lifestyle changes are an essential part of managing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Increasingly, patients are asking about non-medication approaches to control their symptoms. These lifestyle modifications can be categorized into four main areas: 1) Weight loss, the cornerstone intervention, with significant symptom improvement observed after losing as little as 1.7 BMI points. 2) Dietary modifications, which includes both the traditional avoidance of trigger foods and the newer focus on a diet low in simple carbohydrates. 3) Bedtime adjustments, strategies that include elevating the head of the bed, sleeping on the left side, using anti-reflux pillows, and avoiding late-night meals. 4) Tobacco cessation, a key measure for reducing GERD symptoms and promoting overall health. I routinely discuss these changes with my patients, as they not only help manage GERD but also foster healthy habits and have a positive impact beyond the gastrointestinal tract.

Dr. Juan D. Gomez Cifuentes

Weight loss is the most impactful lifestyle intervention for GERD. Research shows a clear linear improvement in symptoms with weight reduction. Traditionally, losing 10% of body weight is a widely accepted goal, extrapolated from other obesity-associated conditions. A reduction in 3.5 points of BMI led to significant symptom improvement in landmark studies but also a modest reduction of 1.7 BMI points has been shown to provide symptom relief.1 Abdominal circumference is another key metric used to track progress, as central obesity rather than BMI alone is strongly linked with GERD. Goals are typically set at less than 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women. Patients using GLP-1 agonists should be informed that these medications may temporarily worsen GERD symptoms due to delayed gastric emptying, however in the long-term these symptoms are expected to improve once significant weight loss is achieved.

Food triggers vary among individuals, with common culprits including fatty meals, spicy foods, chocolate, tomato sauce, citrus fruits, and carbonated beverages. Patients tend to overemphasize diet elimination based on triggers and engage in strict diets. Patients are frequently afraid of these foods causing direct damage to the esophageal mucosa but the hypothesis is that these triggers worsen GERD by increasing transient relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter. The evidence behind this and diet elimination based on triggers has always been weak. In my practice, I encourage patients to follow a diet low in simple carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are present in highly processed food, the average western diet contains ~140 g/day. In a trial, a diet low in simple sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides < 62 g/day) without reducing total daily calories, objectively improved total acid exposure time in pH study.2

Thanks to gravity, nocturnal GERD symptoms are the culprit of many restless nights in these patients. I recommend avoiding food 3 hours before lying down. Since the stomach empties approximately 90% of its contents after 4 hours, waiting longer is not recommended and may result in hunger, making it harder to fall asleep. Sleeping on the left side, which takes advantage of the gastric anatomy, has proved to objectively decrease nocturnal acid exposure time, though some patients may find it challenging to maintain this position all night.3

Elevating the head of the bed is another effective intervention, but it must involve raising the upper body from the waist. Patients should avoid stacking ordinary pillows as this will only elevate the neck and place the body in an unnatural position for sleeping. The most effective strategies are putting blocks/bricks under the feet of the bed, using a bed wedge between the mattress and the box spring or using an adjustable bed frame. There are two types of pillows that have been shown to improve nocturnal GERD symptoms. The classic wedge pillows and the more expensive Medcline reflux relief system®. The Medcline pillow has a dual mechanism that elevates the upper body but also keeps the body on the left side position.4

Tobacco cessation is strongly recommended. Tobacco worsens GERD symptoms by reducing the lower esophageal sphincter pressure and decreasing saliva production which is one of the key components of the normal esophageal acid barrier. Moreover, it is a known risk factor for esophageal cancer. Alcohol has a variety of negative health impacts and decreasing alcohol intake is advised; however, the link between alcohol and GERD symptoms is less robust, especially in patients with low occasional consumption.

In summary, lifestyle modifications play a pivotal role in managing GERD symptoms, offering patients effective, non-pharmacologic strategies to complement medical treatments. Weight loss remains the cornerstone, with even modest reductions in BMI showing significant symptom relief. Dietary adjustments, particularly adopting a low-simple-carbohydrate diet, provide an evidence-based approach. Various bedtime interventions are available to improve nocturnal GERD symptoms. Finally, tobacco cessation is essential, not only for GERD symptom relief but also for overall health. By integrating these lifestyle changes into their routine, patients can improve GERD symptoms while building healthy habits.

Dr. Gomez Cifuentes is vice-chair in the section of gastroenterology at Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico. He declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Ness-Jensen E et al. Lifestyle Intervention in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;14(2):175-82.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.176.

2. Gu C et al. The Effects of Modifying Amount and Type of Dietary Carbohydrate on Esophageal Acid Exposure Time and Esophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Oct 1;117(10):1655-1667. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001889.

3. Schuitenmaker JM et al. Associations Between Sleep Position and Nocturnal Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Study Using Concurrent Monitoring of Sleep Position and Esophageal pH and Impedance. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Feb 1;117(2):346-351. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001588.

4. Person E et al. A Novel Sleep Positioning Device Reduces Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;49(8):655-9. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000359.

Medical Therapy Is the Cornerstone of Effective GERD Treatment

BY BRIJESH B. PATEL, MD

Today, I saw Mr. S in the office for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). He has been on a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and has implemented several lifestyle modifications to manage his reflux. He shared his frustrations, saying, “Doctor, I’ve tried changing my diet, sleeping in a recliner, and adjusting the timing of my meals. I’m practically not enjoying food anymore, and these lifestyle changes have affected my quality of life. Despite all this, I still wake up in the middle of the night with a ‘horrible taste’ in my mouth, and it’s ruining my sleep.”

Dr. Brijesh B. Patel

Later that day, during a discussion with my trainees, one posed an important question: “What about lifestyle measures in the treatment of GERD?” This is a common query in both clinical and academic settings. GERD, with a prevalence estimated at ~20%, is often underreported as many patients begin self-medicating with over-the-counter acid suppressive therapies before seeking medical care. For gastroenterologists, PPIs, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and now potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) form the cornerstone of GERD management.

When I lecture medical students, residents, and fellows about GERD, I emphasize a standard approach: initiating an 8- to 12-week trial of PPIs followed by reassessment. I also stress the importance of combining medical therapy with lifestyle measures. However, the question remains: How adherent are our patients to these lifestyle changes? Similarly, how effectively are trainees integrating the value of lifestyle modifications into their practice? As an academic gastroenterologist, I can teach the theory, but is it being translated into real-world patient care?

The advent of PPIs has been a game changer for managing GERD symptoms and preventing disease progression. PPIs are the backbone of treatment in both gastroenterology and primary care, and they have profoundly improved patients’ quality of life. Most of my patients who present with GERD — whether due to uncontrolled reflux or acid exposure — have already been on a trial of PPIs before seeing me. My role often involves optimizing their timing of PPI administration, addressing incorrect usage, and reinforcing the importance of adherence. In some cases, I incorporate H2RAs as adjunctive therapy for patients who fail to respond adequately to PPIs, particularly when objective disease activity is confirmed through pH studies. These studies also highlight how challenging it is for many patients to maintain a refluxogenic-free lifestyle.

Lifestyle modifications should supplement and support GERD management. Regardless of medical specialty, lifestyle measures should be the first line of treatment. However, adherence and effectiveness vary widely. In reality, achieving sustained weight loss, meal timing adjustments, and dietary modifications (e.g., eliminating trigger foods like red wine, chocolate, coffee, and tomato-based sauces) is a significant challenge for patients. While these measures can reduce the need for PPIs in some cases, they are rarely sufficient as standalone treatments. Until lifestyle modifications are consistently and sustainably incorporated into daily routines, acid-suppressive therapy will remain the mainstay of GERD management.

Turning to newer therapies, PCABs are now FDA-approved for treating GERD. Early efficacy data suggest that PCABs are non-inferior to PPIs, with promising results in managing LA Class C and D esophagitis and maintaining symptom-free days. However, like PPIs, PCABs are associated with potential adverse effects, including C. difficile colitis, impacts on bone health, renal impairment, and mineral deficiencies. While these risks must be carefully discussed with patients, the benefits of medical therapy far outweigh the risks, especially for those with erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, or a high-risk profile for esophageal cancer. In such cases, medical therapies provide superior disease control compared to lifestyle measures, supported by both subjective and objective data.

Managing GERD requires a multipronged approach. Relying solely on lifestyle measures rarely provides complete benefit, as restrictive dietary regimens are difficult to sustain long term. Like many, I can maintain a restrictive diet temporarily but find it unsustainable over time. Conversely, adherence to daily or twice-daily medications tends to be much higher than compliance with multi-level lifestyle changes (e.g., restrictive diets, weight loss, and trigger-food avoidance).

Our therapeutic arsenal for GERD continues to expand, enabling more effective management of patients with uncontrolled acid reflux. While I will continue to counsel patients and educate trainees on the value of lifestyle modifications, I emphasize the importance of adherence to timely medical therapy — whether with PPIs, H2RAs, or PCABs — as the cornerstone of effective GERD treatment.

Dr. Patel is associate program director in the division of digestive diseases & nutrition, at USF Health, Tampa, Fla. He declares no conflicts of interest.

Dear colleagues,

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common reason for referral to gastroenterology. It affects a broad cross-section of our population and is often managed through a combination of lifestyle modifications and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, in the era of PPIs, we must ask: Are lifestyle changes still necessary? And were they ever truly effective?

While PPIs are highly effective, concerns about their potential side effects frequently make headlines. Moreover, the financial burden of lifelong PPI use is a growing consideration. In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Brijesh B. Patel and Dr. Juan D. Gomez Cifuentes explore these questions. Dr. Gomez Cifuentes highlights the benefits of lifestyle changes and identifies which strategies have proved most effective in his practice. Dr. Patel examines the ubiquitous use of PPIs and the challenges of sustaining adherence to lifestyle modifications. We hope these discussions will spark new ideas for managing GERD in your own practice. 

ketwaroo_g_avinash_tx_web_0._etoc
Dr. Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo



We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Do Lifestyle Changes Still Apply in the Treatment of GERD?

BY JUAN D. GOMEZ CIFUENTES, MD

Lifestyle changes are an essential part of managing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Increasingly, patients are asking about non-medication approaches to control their symptoms. These lifestyle modifications can be categorized into four main areas: 1) Weight loss, the cornerstone intervention, with significant symptom improvement observed after losing as little as 1.7 BMI points. 2) Dietary modifications, which includes both the traditional avoidance of trigger foods and the newer focus on a diet low in simple carbohydrates. 3) Bedtime adjustments, strategies that include elevating the head of the bed, sleeping on the left side, using anti-reflux pillows, and avoiding late-night meals. 4) Tobacco cessation, a key measure for reducing GERD symptoms and promoting overall health. I routinely discuss these changes with my patients, as they not only help manage GERD but also foster healthy habits and have a positive impact beyond the gastrointestinal tract.

Dr. Juan D. Gomez Cifuentes

Weight loss is the most impactful lifestyle intervention for GERD. Research shows a clear linear improvement in symptoms with weight reduction. Traditionally, losing 10% of body weight is a widely accepted goal, extrapolated from other obesity-associated conditions. A reduction in 3.5 points of BMI led to significant symptom improvement in landmark studies but also a modest reduction of 1.7 BMI points has been shown to provide symptom relief.1 Abdominal circumference is another key metric used to track progress, as central obesity rather than BMI alone is strongly linked with GERD. Goals are typically set at less than 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women. Patients using GLP-1 agonists should be informed that these medications may temporarily worsen GERD symptoms due to delayed gastric emptying, however in the long-term these symptoms are expected to improve once significant weight loss is achieved.

Food triggers vary among individuals, with common culprits including fatty meals, spicy foods, chocolate, tomato sauce, citrus fruits, and carbonated beverages. Patients tend to overemphasize diet elimination based on triggers and engage in strict diets. Patients are frequently afraid of these foods causing direct damage to the esophageal mucosa but the hypothesis is that these triggers worsen GERD by increasing transient relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter. The evidence behind this and diet elimination based on triggers has always been weak. In my practice, I encourage patients to follow a diet low in simple carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are present in highly processed food, the average western diet contains ~140 g/day. In a trial, a diet low in simple sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides < 62 g/day) without reducing total daily calories, objectively improved total acid exposure time in pH study.2

Thanks to gravity, nocturnal GERD symptoms are the culprit of many restless nights in these patients. I recommend avoiding food 3 hours before lying down. Since the stomach empties approximately 90% of its contents after 4 hours, waiting longer is not recommended and may result in hunger, making it harder to fall asleep. Sleeping on the left side, which takes advantage of the gastric anatomy, has proved to objectively decrease nocturnal acid exposure time, though some patients may find it challenging to maintain this position all night.3

Elevating the head of the bed is another effective intervention, but it must involve raising the upper body from the waist. Patients should avoid stacking ordinary pillows as this will only elevate the neck and place the body in an unnatural position for sleeping. The most effective strategies are putting blocks/bricks under the feet of the bed, using a bed wedge between the mattress and the box spring or using an adjustable bed frame. There are two types of pillows that have been shown to improve nocturnal GERD symptoms. The classic wedge pillows and the more expensive Medcline reflux relief system®. The Medcline pillow has a dual mechanism that elevates the upper body but also keeps the body on the left side position.4

Tobacco cessation is strongly recommended. Tobacco worsens GERD symptoms by reducing the lower esophageal sphincter pressure and decreasing saliva production which is one of the key components of the normal esophageal acid barrier. Moreover, it is a known risk factor for esophageal cancer. Alcohol has a variety of negative health impacts and decreasing alcohol intake is advised; however, the link between alcohol and GERD symptoms is less robust, especially in patients with low occasional consumption.

In summary, lifestyle modifications play a pivotal role in managing GERD symptoms, offering patients effective, non-pharmacologic strategies to complement medical treatments. Weight loss remains the cornerstone, with even modest reductions in BMI showing significant symptom relief. Dietary adjustments, particularly adopting a low-simple-carbohydrate diet, provide an evidence-based approach. Various bedtime interventions are available to improve nocturnal GERD symptoms. Finally, tobacco cessation is essential, not only for GERD symptom relief but also for overall health. By integrating these lifestyle changes into their routine, patients can improve GERD symptoms while building healthy habits.

Dr. Gomez Cifuentes is vice-chair in the section of gastroenterology at Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico. He declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Ness-Jensen E et al. Lifestyle Intervention in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;14(2):175-82.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.176.

2. Gu C et al. The Effects of Modifying Amount and Type of Dietary Carbohydrate on Esophageal Acid Exposure Time and Esophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Oct 1;117(10):1655-1667. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001889.

3. Schuitenmaker JM et al. Associations Between Sleep Position and Nocturnal Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Study Using Concurrent Monitoring of Sleep Position and Esophageal pH and Impedance. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Feb 1;117(2):346-351. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001588.

4. Person E et al. A Novel Sleep Positioning Device Reduces Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;49(8):655-9. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000359.

Medical Therapy Is the Cornerstone of Effective GERD Treatment

BY BRIJESH B. PATEL, MD

Today, I saw Mr. S in the office for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). He has been on a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and has implemented several lifestyle modifications to manage his reflux. He shared his frustrations, saying, “Doctor, I’ve tried changing my diet, sleeping in a recliner, and adjusting the timing of my meals. I’m practically not enjoying food anymore, and these lifestyle changes have affected my quality of life. Despite all this, I still wake up in the middle of the night with a ‘horrible taste’ in my mouth, and it’s ruining my sleep.”

Dr. Brijesh B. Patel

Later that day, during a discussion with my trainees, one posed an important question: “What about lifestyle measures in the treatment of GERD?” This is a common query in both clinical and academic settings. GERD, with a prevalence estimated at ~20%, is often underreported as many patients begin self-medicating with over-the-counter acid suppressive therapies before seeking medical care. For gastroenterologists, PPIs, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and now potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) form the cornerstone of GERD management.

When I lecture medical students, residents, and fellows about GERD, I emphasize a standard approach: initiating an 8- to 12-week trial of PPIs followed by reassessment. I also stress the importance of combining medical therapy with lifestyle measures. However, the question remains: How adherent are our patients to these lifestyle changes? Similarly, how effectively are trainees integrating the value of lifestyle modifications into their practice? As an academic gastroenterologist, I can teach the theory, but is it being translated into real-world patient care?

The advent of PPIs has been a game changer for managing GERD symptoms and preventing disease progression. PPIs are the backbone of treatment in both gastroenterology and primary care, and they have profoundly improved patients’ quality of life. Most of my patients who present with GERD — whether due to uncontrolled reflux or acid exposure — have already been on a trial of PPIs before seeing me. My role often involves optimizing their timing of PPI administration, addressing incorrect usage, and reinforcing the importance of adherence. In some cases, I incorporate H2RAs as adjunctive therapy for patients who fail to respond adequately to PPIs, particularly when objective disease activity is confirmed through pH studies. These studies also highlight how challenging it is for many patients to maintain a refluxogenic-free lifestyle.

Lifestyle modifications should supplement and support GERD management. Regardless of medical specialty, lifestyle measures should be the first line of treatment. However, adherence and effectiveness vary widely. In reality, achieving sustained weight loss, meal timing adjustments, and dietary modifications (e.g., eliminating trigger foods like red wine, chocolate, coffee, and tomato-based sauces) is a significant challenge for patients. While these measures can reduce the need for PPIs in some cases, they are rarely sufficient as standalone treatments. Until lifestyle modifications are consistently and sustainably incorporated into daily routines, acid-suppressive therapy will remain the mainstay of GERD management.

Turning to newer therapies, PCABs are now FDA-approved for treating GERD. Early efficacy data suggest that PCABs are non-inferior to PPIs, with promising results in managing LA Class C and D esophagitis and maintaining symptom-free days. However, like PPIs, PCABs are associated with potential adverse effects, including C. difficile colitis, impacts on bone health, renal impairment, and mineral deficiencies. While these risks must be carefully discussed with patients, the benefits of medical therapy far outweigh the risks, especially for those with erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, or a high-risk profile for esophageal cancer. In such cases, medical therapies provide superior disease control compared to lifestyle measures, supported by both subjective and objective data.

Managing GERD requires a multipronged approach. Relying solely on lifestyle measures rarely provides complete benefit, as restrictive dietary regimens are difficult to sustain long term. Like many, I can maintain a restrictive diet temporarily but find it unsustainable over time. Conversely, adherence to daily or twice-daily medications tends to be much higher than compliance with multi-level lifestyle changes (e.g., restrictive diets, weight loss, and trigger-food avoidance).

Our therapeutic arsenal for GERD continues to expand, enabling more effective management of patients with uncontrolled acid reflux. While I will continue to counsel patients and educate trainees on the value of lifestyle modifications, I emphasize the importance of adherence to timely medical therapy — whether with PPIs, H2RAs, or PCABs — as the cornerstone of effective GERD treatment.

Dr. Patel is associate program director in the division of digestive diseases & nutrition, at USF Health, Tampa, Fla. He declares no conflicts of interest.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 10:03
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 10:03
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 10:03
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 10:03

An Exciting Time to Be a Gastroenterologist

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/08/2025 - 17:20

Happy New Year, everyone! As we enter 2025, I’ve been reflecting on just how much has changed in the field of gastroenterology since I completed my fellowship a decade ago.

After developing and disseminating highly effective treatments for hepatitis C, the field of hepatology has shifted rapidly toward identifying and managing other significant causes of liver disease, particularly alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). New disease nomenclatures have been developed that have changed the way we describe common diseases – most notably, NALFD is now MASLD and FGID are now DGBI.

Dr. Megan A. Adams

There have been marked advances in obesity management, including not only innovations in endobariatric therapies such as intragastric balloons and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, but also the introduction of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, which offer new hope in effectively tackling the obesity epidemic. Our growing understanding of the microbiome’s role in health has opened new avenues for treating GI diseases and introduced the potential for more personalized treatment approaches based on individual microbiome profiles. New inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) pharmacotherapeutics have been developed at a dizzying pace – our IBD patients have so many more treatment options today than they did just a decade ago, making treatment decisions much more complex.

Finally, we are just beginning to unleash the potential of artificial intelligence, which is likely to transform the field of medicine and GI clinical practice over the next decade. To be sure, it is an exciting time to be a gastroenterologist, and I can’t wait to see to what the next decade of innovation and discovery will bring.

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we highlight the first-ever “living” AGA clinical practice guideline on pharmacologic management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. From the recent AASLD meeting, we bring you exciting new data demonstrating the effectiveness of GLP-1 agonists (specifically, semaglutide) in treating MASH. In January’s Member Spotlight column, we introduce you to Drs. Mindy, Amy, and Kristen Engevik, who share their fascinating career journeys as GI researchers (and sisters!). In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Brijesh Patel and Dr. Gomez Cifuentes share their experiences counseling patients regarding lifestyle modifications for gastroesophageal reflux disease and what strategies have proven to be the most effective adjuncts to pharmacotherapy. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our January issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Publications
Topics
Sections

Happy New Year, everyone! As we enter 2025, I’ve been reflecting on just how much has changed in the field of gastroenterology since I completed my fellowship a decade ago.

After developing and disseminating highly effective treatments for hepatitis C, the field of hepatology has shifted rapidly toward identifying and managing other significant causes of liver disease, particularly alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). New disease nomenclatures have been developed that have changed the way we describe common diseases – most notably, NALFD is now MASLD and FGID are now DGBI.

Dr. Megan A. Adams

There have been marked advances in obesity management, including not only innovations in endobariatric therapies such as intragastric balloons and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, but also the introduction of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, which offer new hope in effectively tackling the obesity epidemic. Our growing understanding of the microbiome’s role in health has opened new avenues for treating GI diseases and introduced the potential for more personalized treatment approaches based on individual microbiome profiles. New inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) pharmacotherapeutics have been developed at a dizzying pace – our IBD patients have so many more treatment options today than they did just a decade ago, making treatment decisions much more complex.

Finally, we are just beginning to unleash the potential of artificial intelligence, which is likely to transform the field of medicine and GI clinical practice over the next decade. To be sure, it is an exciting time to be a gastroenterologist, and I can’t wait to see to what the next decade of innovation and discovery will bring.

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we highlight the first-ever “living” AGA clinical practice guideline on pharmacologic management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. From the recent AASLD meeting, we bring you exciting new data demonstrating the effectiveness of GLP-1 agonists (specifically, semaglutide) in treating MASH. In January’s Member Spotlight column, we introduce you to Drs. Mindy, Amy, and Kristen Engevik, who share their fascinating career journeys as GI researchers (and sisters!). In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Brijesh Patel and Dr. Gomez Cifuentes share their experiences counseling patients regarding lifestyle modifications for gastroesophageal reflux disease and what strategies have proven to be the most effective adjuncts to pharmacotherapy. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our January issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Happy New Year, everyone! As we enter 2025, I’ve been reflecting on just how much has changed in the field of gastroenterology since I completed my fellowship a decade ago.

After developing and disseminating highly effective treatments for hepatitis C, the field of hepatology has shifted rapidly toward identifying and managing other significant causes of liver disease, particularly alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). New disease nomenclatures have been developed that have changed the way we describe common diseases – most notably, NALFD is now MASLD and FGID are now DGBI.

Dr. Megan A. Adams

There have been marked advances in obesity management, including not only innovations in endobariatric therapies such as intragastric balloons and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, but also the introduction of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, which offer new hope in effectively tackling the obesity epidemic. Our growing understanding of the microbiome’s role in health has opened new avenues for treating GI diseases and introduced the potential for more personalized treatment approaches based on individual microbiome profiles. New inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) pharmacotherapeutics have been developed at a dizzying pace – our IBD patients have so many more treatment options today than they did just a decade ago, making treatment decisions much more complex.

Finally, we are just beginning to unleash the potential of artificial intelligence, which is likely to transform the field of medicine and GI clinical practice over the next decade. To be sure, it is an exciting time to be a gastroenterologist, and I can’t wait to see to what the next decade of innovation and discovery will bring.

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we highlight the first-ever “living” AGA clinical practice guideline on pharmacologic management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. From the recent AASLD meeting, we bring you exciting new data demonstrating the effectiveness of GLP-1 agonists (specifically, semaglutide) in treating MASH. In January’s Member Spotlight column, we introduce you to Drs. Mindy, Amy, and Kristen Engevik, who share their fascinating career journeys as GI researchers (and sisters!). In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Brijesh Patel and Dr. Gomez Cifuentes share their experiences counseling patients regarding lifestyle modifications for gastroesophageal reflux disease and what strategies have proven to be the most effective adjuncts to pharmacotherapy. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our January issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 09:43
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 09:43
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 09:43
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Tue, 12/10/2024 - 09:43

MRI-Guided SBRT Cuts Long-Term Toxicities in Prostate Cancer

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 13:47

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

  • MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
  • To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
  • The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
  • In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
  • Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
  • Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
  • Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

  • MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
  • To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
  • The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
  • In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
  • Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
  • Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
  • Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

  • MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
  • To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
  • The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
  • In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
  • Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
  • Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
  • Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 13:45
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 13:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 13:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 13:45

Americans’ Top Causes of Anxiety Revealed

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 15:04

What current events are keeping Americans up at night? The economy, gun violence, and hate crimes top the list, results from a newly released American Psychiatric Association (APA) survey showed.

Anxiety about international conflicts — namely, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars — also remains high.

“While we like to stay informed, the news can also impact our mental health, and being mindful of that impact is important. If current events seem overwhelming it may be time to limit your news consumption,” APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, MD, MBD, said in a statement.

Survey results also revealed the election and the holidays were common sources of stress.

“Election stress is common, and it’s important to recognize that, as we’re spending more time with family around the holidays, we might need to have a strategy to manage our own mental health during these times,” Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“As with any difficult topic, we all have different levels of avoidance or desire to engage, and it’s okay to set boundaries based on past conversations with family. I think sometimes we get drawn into arguments that we don’t want to have or may not be productive for either side,” said Liu, who chairs the APA Council on Communications.

In line with trends throughout 2024, adults polled by the APA in November were most anxious about the economy (75%), gun violence (64%), and hate crimes (60%). The survey included 2200 US adults as part of the APA’s Healthy Minds monthly series.

Anxiety about international conflicts remained high in November at 57% — but was down from 65% in August.

Election anxiety remained high in mid-November but not as high as before the election. In August, 72% of Americans said they were anxious about the 2024 election. In November, just after the election, 50% reported anxiety over the election outcome.

“I think the anticipation of change can sometimes be worse than the change itself. So I think a lot of people are now taking the attitude of — let’s wait and see what actually happens,” said Liu.

Half the adults (50%) anticipate the same amount of stress as the 2023 holiday season, while almost one third expect more stress (28%), and one fourth anticipate less stress (23%).

When asked how the holidays generally affect their mental health, 38% said it has positive effects, and 21% said the opposite was true.

 

Anxiety About the Future

After a divisive election, most Americans were ready to avoid politics at holiday gatherings, results of a separate poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in late November showed.

That poll, which included 2000 US adults, showed that more than 7 in 10 (72%) said they wanted to avoid talking about politics with family and friends over the holidays.

In addition, nearly two in five adults (39%) reported they were stressed by the thought of politics being raised at holiday gatherings and would try to avoid family members they disagree with. Younger adults were significantly more likely than were their older counterparts to report they planned to avoid family over the holidays.

The future of the nation also weighs on the minds of many Americans.

Another poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in August prior to the 2024 US presidential election showed that 77% of respondents said the future of the nation was a significant source of stress for them.

In the postelection poll, more than one third of adults (35%) said they are more stressed about the future of the nation now than they were leading up to the election, and another third reported they are now less stressed (32%). A quarter of adults (24%) said their stress about the future of the nation was unchanged, and 9% said they were not stressed about the future of the nation then or now.

“There’s still clearly a lot of uncertainty, and there’s a lot of activity right now for the president-elect,” which can contribute to anxiety, C. Vaile Wright, PhD, psychologist, researcher and spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, told this news organization.

These data also show that many Americans have little or no trust in the government, with some wanting to leave the United States.

“It’s a reflection of the lack of strong leadership across the board in this country. We have a governmental system in place that does not seem to serve the people, but to serve corporations and maintenance of power. I think people are disillusioned with it and that creates a lack of trust and hopelessness,” Wright noted.

Liu and Wright reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

What current events are keeping Americans up at night? The economy, gun violence, and hate crimes top the list, results from a newly released American Psychiatric Association (APA) survey showed.

Anxiety about international conflicts — namely, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars — also remains high.

“While we like to stay informed, the news can also impact our mental health, and being mindful of that impact is important. If current events seem overwhelming it may be time to limit your news consumption,” APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, MD, MBD, said in a statement.

Survey results also revealed the election and the holidays were common sources of stress.

“Election stress is common, and it’s important to recognize that, as we’re spending more time with family around the holidays, we might need to have a strategy to manage our own mental health during these times,” Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“As with any difficult topic, we all have different levels of avoidance or desire to engage, and it’s okay to set boundaries based on past conversations with family. I think sometimes we get drawn into arguments that we don’t want to have or may not be productive for either side,” said Liu, who chairs the APA Council on Communications.

In line with trends throughout 2024, adults polled by the APA in November were most anxious about the economy (75%), gun violence (64%), and hate crimes (60%). The survey included 2200 US adults as part of the APA’s Healthy Minds monthly series.

Anxiety about international conflicts remained high in November at 57% — but was down from 65% in August.

Election anxiety remained high in mid-November but not as high as before the election. In August, 72% of Americans said they were anxious about the 2024 election. In November, just after the election, 50% reported anxiety over the election outcome.

“I think the anticipation of change can sometimes be worse than the change itself. So I think a lot of people are now taking the attitude of — let’s wait and see what actually happens,” said Liu.

Half the adults (50%) anticipate the same amount of stress as the 2023 holiday season, while almost one third expect more stress (28%), and one fourth anticipate less stress (23%).

When asked how the holidays generally affect their mental health, 38% said it has positive effects, and 21% said the opposite was true.

 

Anxiety About the Future

After a divisive election, most Americans were ready to avoid politics at holiday gatherings, results of a separate poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in late November showed.

That poll, which included 2000 US adults, showed that more than 7 in 10 (72%) said they wanted to avoid talking about politics with family and friends over the holidays.

In addition, nearly two in five adults (39%) reported they were stressed by the thought of politics being raised at holiday gatherings and would try to avoid family members they disagree with. Younger adults were significantly more likely than were their older counterparts to report they planned to avoid family over the holidays.

The future of the nation also weighs on the minds of many Americans.

Another poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in August prior to the 2024 US presidential election showed that 77% of respondents said the future of the nation was a significant source of stress for them.

In the postelection poll, more than one third of adults (35%) said they are more stressed about the future of the nation now than they were leading up to the election, and another third reported they are now less stressed (32%). A quarter of adults (24%) said their stress about the future of the nation was unchanged, and 9% said they were not stressed about the future of the nation then or now.

“There’s still clearly a lot of uncertainty, and there’s a lot of activity right now for the president-elect,” which can contribute to anxiety, C. Vaile Wright, PhD, psychologist, researcher and spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, told this news organization.

These data also show that many Americans have little or no trust in the government, with some wanting to leave the United States.

“It’s a reflection of the lack of strong leadership across the board in this country. We have a governmental system in place that does not seem to serve the people, but to serve corporations and maintenance of power. I think people are disillusioned with it and that creates a lack of trust and hopelessness,” Wright noted.

Liu and Wright reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What current events are keeping Americans up at night? The economy, gun violence, and hate crimes top the list, results from a newly released American Psychiatric Association (APA) survey showed.

Anxiety about international conflicts — namely, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars — also remains high.

“While we like to stay informed, the news can also impact our mental health, and being mindful of that impact is important. If current events seem overwhelming it may be time to limit your news consumption,” APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, MD, MBD, said in a statement.

Survey results also revealed the election and the holidays were common sources of stress.

“Election stress is common, and it’s important to recognize that, as we’re spending more time with family around the holidays, we might need to have a strategy to manage our own mental health during these times,” Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“As with any difficult topic, we all have different levels of avoidance or desire to engage, and it’s okay to set boundaries based on past conversations with family. I think sometimes we get drawn into arguments that we don’t want to have or may not be productive for either side,” said Liu, who chairs the APA Council on Communications.

In line with trends throughout 2024, adults polled by the APA in November were most anxious about the economy (75%), gun violence (64%), and hate crimes (60%). The survey included 2200 US adults as part of the APA’s Healthy Minds monthly series.

Anxiety about international conflicts remained high in November at 57% — but was down from 65% in August.

Election anxiety remained high in mid-November but not as high as before the election. In August, 72% of Americans said they were anxious about the 2024 election. In November, just after the election, 50% reported anxiety over the election outcome.

“I think the anticipation of change can sometimes be worse than the change itself. So I think a lot of people are now taking the attitude of — let’s wait and see what actually happens,” said Liu.

Half the adults (50%) anticipate the same amount of stress as the 2023 holiday season, while almost one third expect more stress (28%), and one fourth anticipate less stress (23%).

When asked how the holidays generally affect their mental health, 38% said it has positive effects, and 21% said the opposite was true.

 

Anxiety About the Future

After a divisive election, most Americans were ready to avoid politics at holiday gatherings, results of a separate poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in late November showed.

That poll, which included 2000 US adults, showed that more than 7 in 10 (72%) said they wanted to avoid talking about politics with family and friends over the holidays.

In addition, nearly two in five adults (39%) reported they were stressed by the thought of politics being raised at holiday gatherings and would try to avoid family members they disagree with. Younger adults were significantly more likely than were their older counterparts to report they planned to avoid family over the holidays.

The future of the nation also weighs on the minds of many Americans.

Another poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in August prior to the 2024 US presidential election showed that 77% of respondents said the future of the nation was a significant source of stress for them.

In the postelection poll, more than one third of adults (35%) said they are more stressed about the future of the nation now than they were leading up to the election, and another third reported they are now less stressed (32%). A quarter of adults (24%) said their stress about the future of the nation was unchanged, and 9% said they were not stressed about the future of the nation then or now.

“There’s still clearly a lot of uncertainty, and there’s a lot of activity right now for the president-elect,” which can contribute to anxiety, C. Vaile Wright, PhD, psychologist, researcher and spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, told this news organization.

These data also show that many Americans have little or no trust in the government, with some wanting to leave the United States.

“It’s a reflection of the lack of strong leadership across the board in this country. We have a governmental system in place that does not seem to serve the people, but to serve corporations and maintenance of power. I think people are disillusioned with it and that creates a lack of trust and hopelessness,” Wright noted.

Liu and Wright reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 15:02
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 15:02
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 15:02
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 15:02

Proteins in Plasma Linked to MI, Especially for Women

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:46

Forty-five circulating proteins in plasma are linked to the risk for myocardial infarction (MI), showed a new study that confirms some known associations and identifies new ones. Several proteins are associated with MI in women but not men, and some proteins linked with MI in both men and women are more strongly associated with MI in women.

“We hope that our study will shed light on pathways in MI,” said principal author Olga Titova, PhD, an epidemiologist at Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden. The work was published in the European Heart Journal.

Martha Gulati, MD, a cardiologist and associate director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said the novel discovery of different patterns between men and women makes this an exciting study. The findings “highlight that sex differences in disease phenotype begin at the molecular level,” she said.

Titova and her team analyzed thousands of patients in two databases — one in Sweden (11,751 patients), the other in the United Kingdom (51,613 patients) — to discover proteins in the patients who went on to have an MI. Using one database to discover biomarkers and a second to replicate the findings is a common approach, said Titova.

Casting a Wide Net to Catch Proteins

The two databases “make findings more generalizable, allow us to confirm robust associations, and help minimize the risk of false positives.” The two databases mean researchers are more confident that the findings can be applied across populations, Titova added.

A total of 44 proteins were associated with later MI in both databases, adjusted for common MI risk factors as well as such factors as education, diet, physical activity, and alcohol intake, Titova explained. An additional protein was included from the first database that was unavailable in the second. Some of the proteins have been found in other studies, and this study confirms the link. Others were new, and a few appear to protect patients from MI.

“Most of the proteins are related to or involved in inflammation and atherosclerosis,” said Titova.

This is the first study to cast such a wide net, Titova pointed out. While several proteins have previously been linked to MI, most earlier studies have focused on specific proteins in populations that already have coronary artery disease or have involved cohorts of men only.

But she stresses that this study poses more questions than it answers. More research is needed to determine how proteins are involved in pathways leading to MI. The study found that some proteins may be mediators of general cardiovascular disease risk, whereas others are involved in mechanisms specifically linked to MI. Many proteins are involved in atherosclerosis, thrombosis, inflammation, immune system–related pathways, injury and tissue repair, coagulation, bone homeostasis, and iron metabolism.

“At this point, some [proteins] appear to be causal, some seem to be an association,” said Titova. It remains to be determined “which are on the causal path, which are potential biomarkers, which are going to shed light on the mechanisms” of MI.

The study took a step toward determining which proteins might be involved in causing MI through an analysis of some protein levels determined by genetics. This found three proteins linked to a higher risk for MI and three linked to a lower risk.

It’s Different for Women

Thirteen of the proteins were linked with later MI in women, either exclusively or more strongly than in men. Many of these associations were replicated in the second database, showing an alignment across populations.

Titova said the reason for the sex difference remains a mystery. “We have to go to the molecular level. It could be a consequence of risk factors affecting the sexes differently or different biology” between men and women.

Gulati, who specializes in women’s heart health, explained, “We know inflammation is much more prevalent in women and is the pathway to cardiovascular disease.” She points out that noncardiac inflammatory diseases are also more prevalent in women. Other biomarkers for inflammation, such as C-reactive protein, are higher in women than in men. She thinks the underlying mechanisms could involve “how we [women] make our proteins and how we respond to hormones.”

By identifying proteins linked to MI in women, the study helps to fill an important gap in our knowledge. “I can’t tell you how many papers don’t even look at sex differences. If we don’t look, we won’t know there are differences,” Gulati said. “In much of our cardiac research, women are underrepresented.”

The findings of this trial and others like it may lead to new approaches to prevention and treatment, Titova and Gulati agreed. Several proteins found in this study that may have a causal link with MI are already targets of drug development, they added.

Titova said other proteins may be useful in the future as biomarkers that indicate a need for preventive action.

Gulati asked, “If we can show some of the proteins are involved in the inflammatory response — if they are causal and we can prevent them upfront — can we reduce the chance of MI?” She and Titova said the many questions remaining should prove a rewarding avenue for research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Forty-five circulating proteins in plasma are linked to the risk for myocardial infarction (MI), showed a new study that confirms some known associations and identifies new ones. Several proteins are associated with MI in women but not men, and some proteins linked with MI in both men and women are more strongly associated with MI in women.

“We hope that our study will shed light on pathways in MI,” said principal author Olga Titova, PhD, an epidemiologist at Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden. The work was published in the European Heart Journal.

Martha Gulati, MD, a cardiologist and associate director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said the novel discovery of different patterns between men and women makes this an exciting study. The findings “highlight that sex differences in disease phenotype begin at the molecular level,” she said.

Titova and her team analyzed thousands of patients in two databases — one in Sweden (11,751 patients), the other in the United Kingdom (51,613 patients) — to discover proteins in the patients who went on to have an MI. Using one database to discover biomarkers and a second to replicate the findings is a common approach, said Titova.

Casting a Wide Net to Catch Proteins

The two databases “make findings more generalizable, allow us to confirm robust associations, and help minimize the risk of false positives.” The two databases mean researchers are more confident that the findings can be applied across populations, Titova added.

A total of 44 proteins were associated with later MI in both databases, adjusted for common MI risk factors as well as such factors as education, diet, physical activity, and alcohol intake, Titova explained. An additional protein was included from the first database that was unavailable in the second. Some of the proteins have been found in other studies, and this study confirms the link. Others were new, and a few appear to protect patients from MI.

“Most of the proteins are related to or involved in inflammation and atherosclerosis,” said Titova.

This is the first study to cast such a wide net, Titova pointed out. While several proteins have previously been linked to MI, most earlier studies have focused on specific proteins in populations that already have coronary artery disease or have involved cohorts of men only.

But she stresses that this study poses more questions than it answers. More research is needed to determine how proteins are involved in pathways leading to MI. The study found that some proteins may be mediators of general cardiovascular disease risk, whereas others are involved in mechanisms specifically linked to MI. Many proteins are involved in atherosclerosis, thrombosis, inflammation, immune system–related pathways, injury and tissue repair, coagulation, bone homeostasis, and iron metabolism.

“At this point, some [proteins] appear to be causal, some seem to be an association,” said Titova. It remains to be determined “which are on the causal path, which are potential biomarkers, which are going to shed light on the mechanisms” of MI.

The study took a step toward determining which proteins might be involved in causing MI through an analysis of some protein levels determined by genetics. This found three proteins linked to a higher risk for MI and three linked to a lower risk.

It’s Different for Women

Thirteen of the proteins were linked with later MI in women, either exclusively or more strongly than in men. Many of these associations were replicated in the second database, showing an alignment across populations.

Titova said the reason for the sex difference remains a mystery. “We have to go to the molecular level. It could be a consequence of risk factors affecting the sexes differently or different biology” between men and women.

Gulati, who specializes in women’s heart health, explained, “We know inflammation is much more prevalent in women and is the pathway to cardiovascular disease.” She points out that noncardiac inflammatory diseases are also more prevalent in women. Other biomarkers for inflammation, such as C-reactive protein, are higher in women than in men. She thinks the underlying mechanisms could involve “how we [women] make our proteins and how we respond to hormones.”

By identifying proteins linked to MI in women, the study helps to fill an important gap in our knowledge. “I can’t tell you how many papers don’t even look at sex differences. If we don’t look, we won’t know there are differences,” Gulati said. “In much of our cardiac research, women are underrepresented.”

The findings of this trial and others like it may lead to new approaches to prevention and treatment, Titova and Gulati agreed. Several proteins found in this study that may have a causal link with MI are already targets of drug development, they added.

Titova said other proteins may be useful in the future as biomarkers that indicate a need for preventive action.

Gulati asked, “If we can show some of the proteins are involved in the inflammatory response — if they are causal and we can prevent them upfront — can we reduce the chance of MI?” She and Titova said the many questions remaining should prove a rewarding avenue for research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Forty-five circulating proteins in plasma are linked to the risk for myocardial infarction (MI), showed a new study that confirms some known associations and identifies new ones. Several proteins are associated with MI in women but not men, and some proteins linked with MI in both men and women are more strongly associated with MI in women.

“We hope that our study will shed light on pathways in MI,” said principal author Olga Titova, PhD, an epidemiologist at Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden. The work was published in the European Heart Journal.

Martha Gulati, MD, a cardiologist and associate director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said the novel discovery of different patterns between men and women makes this an exciting study. The findings “highlight that sex differences in disease phenotype begin at the molecular level,” she said.

Titova and her team analyzed thousands of patients in two databases — one in Sweden (11,751 patients), the other in the United Kingdom (51,613 patients) — to discover proteins in the patients who went on to have an MI. Using one database to discover biomarkers and a second to replicate the findings is a common approach, said Titova.

Casting a Wide Net to Catch Proteins

The two databases “make findings more generalizable, allow us to confirm robust associations, and help minimize the risk of false positives.” The two databases mean researchers are more confident that the findings can be applied across populations, Titova added.

A total of 44 proteins were associated with later MI in both databases, adjusted for common MI risk factors as well as such factors as education, diet, physical activity, and alcohol intake, Titova explained. An additional protein was included from the first database that was unavailable in the second. Some of the proteins have been found in other studies, and this study confirms the link. Others were new, and a few appear to protect patients from MI.

“Most of the proteins are related to or involved in inflammation and atherosclerosis,” said Titova.

This is the first study to cast such a wide net, Titova pointed out. While several proteins have previously been linked to MI, most earlier studies have focused on specific proteins in populations that already have coronary artery disease or have involved cohorts of men only.

But she stresses that this study poses more questions than it answers. More research is needed to determine how proteins are involved in pathways leading to MI. The study found that some proteins may be mediators of general cardiovascular disease risk, whereas others are involved in mechanisms specifically linked to MI. Many proteins are involved in atherosclerosis, thrombosis, inflammation, immune system–related pathways, injury and tissue repair, coagulation, bone homeostasis, and iron metabolism.

“At this point, some [proteins] appear to be causal, some seem to be an association,” said Titova. It remains to be determined “which are on the causal path, which are potential biomarkers, which are going to shed light on the mechanisms” of MI.

The study took a step toward determining which proteins might be involved in causing MI through an analysis of some protein levels determined by genetics. This found three proteins linked to a higher risk for MI and three linked to a lower risk.

It’s Different for Women

Thirteen of the proteins were linked with later MI in women, either exclusively or more strongly than in men. Many of these associations were replicated in the second database, showing an alignment across populations.

Titova said the reason for the sex difference remains a mystery. “We have to go to the molecular level. It could be a consequence of risk factors affecting the sexes differently or different biology” between men and women.

Gulati, who specializes in women’s heart health, explained, “We know inflammation is much more prevalent in women and is the pathway to cardiovascular disease.” She points out that noncardiac inflammatory diseases are also more prevalent in women. Other biomarkers for inflammation, such as C-reactive protein, are higher in women than in men. She thinks the underlying mechanisms could involve “how we [women] make our proteins and how we respond to hormones.”

By identifying proteins linked to MI in women, the study helps to fill an important gap in our knowledge. “I can’t tell you how many papers don’t even look at sex differences. If we don’t look, we won’t know there are differences,” Gulati said. “In much of our cardiac research, women are underrepresented.”

The findings of this trial and others like it may lead to new approaches to prevention and treatment, Titova and Gulati agreed. Several proteins found in this study that may have a causal link with MI are already targets of drug development, they added.

Titova said other proteins may be useful in the future as biomarkers that indicate a need for preventive action.

Gulati asked, “If we can show some of the proteins are involved in the inflammatory response — if they are causal and we can prevent them upfront — can we reduce the chance of MI?” She and Titova said the many questions remaining should prove a rewarding avenue for research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:44
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:44
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:44
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:44

70% of US Counties Have No Endocrinologist, New Study Finds

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:42

More than two thirds of American counties don’t have an endocrinologist, according to a new analysis by GoodRx, a company that provides discount coupons for medications.

A total of 50 million people who live in the 2168 counties without a practicing endocrinologist are at a higher risk for poor health outcomes, according to the analysis

The author reported that individuals who live in endocrinology “deserts” are 12% more likely to die from endocrine-related conditions and have higher rates of diabetes, obesity, and stroke than those who live in counties where there are endocrinologists.

GoodRx’s finely detailed maps show that endocrinologists are clustered on the coasts and around major cities. Many counties have just a single endocrinologist and no pediatric endocrinologists.

Endocrinologists are not flocking to areas with a high type 2 diabetes prevalence — such as southern states, many parts of Texas, and counties with high concentrations of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives.

The maps speak volumes about disparities. In Sabine Parish, Louisiana, which shares a border with east Texas, the adult diabetes prevalence is 14%. The age-adjusted diabetes death rate is 52.6 per 100,000, in a population of 16,936 adults. There are no endocrinologists in that parish and one in a bordering parish.

In the entire state of Alaska, there are a total of two adult endocrinologists — one in Anchorage County and one in Fairbanks County — and two pediatric endocrinologists, both in Anchorage.

Buffalo County, South Dakota, which has no endocrinologists and is dominated by the Crow Creek Reservation, has a diabetes prevalence of 16.6% and a diabetes death rate of 143.3 per 100,000.

Connecticut’s Hartford County, however, has 69 adult endocrinologists and 9 pediatric endocrinologists. The adult diabetes prevalence is 0%, and the death rate is 26.3 per 100,000, in a population of 896,854.

To come up with its maps, GoodRx used population estimates from the 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Places dataset and calculated adult diabetes rates and age-adjusted diabetes-related death rates per 100,000 using the 2024 CDC Places and CDC Wonder datasets. Data on the number of practicing endocrinologists came from HealthLink Dimensions, a company that provides databases for marketing purposes.

Robert Lash, MD, chief medical officer for The Endocrine Society, said that the GoodRx data are not especially new. Endocrinology “deserts” have existed for a decade or more, Lash said.

The GoodRx analysis concluded that a lack of endocrinologists in the “desert” counties directly led to higher death rates in those areas. “This is much more an association that it is causation,” countered Lash, noting that the deserts tend to align with healthcare professional shortage areas.

GoodRx also acknowledged the overlap and said that it could mean less access to primary care. In turn, “many patients may not even receive a diagnosis for endocrine-related conditions, let alone the specialized care they need,” wrote the analyst. “Preventable conditions like diabetes spiral into severe complications.”

Lash said seeking out a primary care doctor is one option for those without access to an endocrinologist. Telemedicine has also helped expand access, said Lash, adding that endocrinologists have been among the more frequent users.

Even so, the shortage of endocrinologists is an ongoing problem, he said. Only about 5000-6000 endocrinologists are actively practicing, estimates The Endocrine Society.

Fewer medical school graduates are choosing endocrinology, in part because of the lack of compensation, said Lash.

The society has begun a push to interest more students. Starting in 2024, The Society awarded grants to 10 medical schools to start endocrinology interest groups. The Medical School Engagement Program also sponsors two students for a VIP-type experience at the annual scientific meeting.

The hope is to boost interest in fellowships, which come after 3 years of internal medicine residency. Currently, there are only about 11 applicants for every 10 fellowship spots, said Lash.

It may be a while before the society’s experiment bears fruit. Those entering medical school in 2024 would not be eligible for fellowship until 2031, noted Lash.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” he said. “We know that this problem is not going to get solved overnight.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

More than two thirds of American counties don’t have an endocrinologist, according to a new analysis by GoodRx, a company that provides discount coupons for medications.

A total of 50 million people who live in the 2168 counties without a practicing endocrinologist are at a higher risk for poor health outcomes, according to the analysis

The author reported that individuals who live in endocrinology “deserts” are 12% more likely to die from endocrine-related conditions and have higher rates of diabetes, obesity, and stroke than those who live in counties where there are endocrinologists.

GoodRx’s finely detailed maps show that endocrinologists are clustered on the coasts and around major cities. Many counties have just a single endocrinologist and no pediatric endocrinologists.

Endocrinologists are not flocking to areas with a high type 2 diabetes prevalence — such as southern states, many parts of Texas, and counties with high concentrations of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives.

The maps speak volumes about disparities. In Sabine Parish, Louisiana, which shares a border with east Texas, the adult diabetes prevalence is 14%. The age-adjusted diabetes death rate is 52.6 per 100,000, in a population of 16,936 adults. There are no endocrinologists in that parish and one in a bordering parish.

In the entire state of Alaska, there are a total of two adult endocrinologists — one in Anchorage County and one in Fairbanks County — and two pediatric endocrinologists, both in Anchorage.

Buffalo County, South Dakota, which has no endocrinologists and is dominated by the Crow Creek Reservation, has a diabetes prevalence of 16.6% and a diabetes death rate of 143.3 per 100,000.

Connecticut’s Hartford County, however, has 69 adult endocrinologists and 9 pediatric endocrinologists. The adult diabetes prevalence is 0%, and the death rate is 26.3 per 100,000, in a population of 896,854.

To come up with its maps, GoodRx used population estimates from the 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Places dataset and calculated adult diabetes rates and age-adjusted diabetes-related death rates per 100,000 using the 2024 CDC Places and CDC Wonder datasets. Data on the number of practicing endocrinologists came from HealthLink Dimensions, a company that provides databases for marketing purposes.

Robert Lash, MD, chief medical officer for The Endocrine Society, said that the GoodRx data are not especially new. Endocrinology “deserts” have existed for a decade or more, Lash said.

The GoodRx analysis concluded that a lack of endocrinologists in the “desert” counties directly led to higher death rates in those areas. “This is much more an association that it is causation,” countered Lash, noting that the deserts tend to align with healthcare professional shortage areas.

GoodRx also acknowledged the overlap and said that it could mean less access to primary care. In turn, “many patients may not even receive a diagnosis for endocrine-related conditions, let alone the specialized care they need,” wrote the analyst. “Preventable conditions like diabetes spiral into severe complications.”

Lash said seeking out a primary care doctor is one option for those without access to an endocrinologist. Telemedicine has also helped expand access, said Lash, adding that endocrinologists have been among the more frequent users.

Even so, the shortage of endocrinologists is an ongoing problem, he said. Only about 5000-6000 endocrinologists are actively practicing, estimates The Endocrine Society.

Fewer medical school graduates are choosing endocrinology, in part because of the lack of compensation, said Lash.

The society has begun a push to interest more students. Starting in 2024, The Society awarded grants to 10 medical schools to start endocrinology interest groups. The Medical School Engagement Program also sponsors two students for a VIP-type experience at the annual scientific meeting.

The hope is to boost interest in fellowships, which come after 3 years of internal medicine residency. Currently, there are only about 11 applicants for every 10 fellowship spots, said Lash.

It may be a while before the society’s experiment bears fruit. Those entering medical school in 2024 would not be eligible for fellowship until 2031, noted Lash.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” he said. “We know that this problem is not going to get solved overnight.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than two thirds of American counties don’t have an endocrinologist, according to a new analysis by GoodRx, a company that provides discount coupons for medications.

A total of 50 million people who live in the 2168 counties without a practicing endocrinologist are at a higher risk for poor health outcomes, according to the analysis

The author reported that individuals who live in endocrinology “deserts” are 12% more likely to die from endocrine-related conditions and have higher rates of diabetes, obesity, and stroke than those who live in counties where there are endocrinologists.

GoodRx’s finely detailed maps show that endocrinologists are clustered on the coasts and around major cities. Many counties have just a single endocrinologist and no pediatric endocrinologists.

Endocrinologists are not flocking to areas with a high type 2 diabetes prevalence — such as southern states, many parts of Texas, and counties with high concentrations of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives.

The maps speak volumes about disparities. In Sabine Parish, Louisiana, which shares a border with east Texas, the adult diabetes prevalence is 14%. The age-adjusted diabetes death rate is 52.6 per 100,000, in a population of 16,936 adults. There are no endocrinologists in that parish and one in a bordering parish.

In the entire state of Alaska, there are a total of two adult endocrinologists — one in Anchorage County and one in Fairbanks County — and two pediatric endocrinologists, both in Anchorage.

Buffalo County, South Dakota, which has no endocrinologists and is dominated by the Crow Creek Reservation, has a diabetes prevalence of 16.6% and a diabetes death rate of 143.3 per 100,000.

Connecticut’s Hartford County, however, has 69 adult endocrinologists and 9 pediatric endocrinologists. The adult diabetes prevalence is 0%, and the death rate is 26.3 per 100,000, in a population of 896,854.

To come up with its maps, GoodRx used population estimates from the 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Places dataset and calculated adult diabetes rates and age-adjusted diabetes-related death rates per 100,000 using the 2024 CDC Places and CDC Wonder datasets. Data on the number of practicing endocrinologists came from HealthLink Dimensions, a company that provides databases for marketing purposes.

Robert Lash, MD, chief medical officer for The Endocrine Society, said that the GoodRx data are not especially new. Endocrinology “deserts” have existed for a decade or more, Lash said.

The GoodRx analysis concluded that a lack of endocrinologists in the “desert” counties directly led to higher death rates in those areas. “This is much more an association that it is causation,” countered Lash, noting that the deserts tend to align with healthcare professional shortage areas.

GoodRx also acknowledged the overlap and said that it could mean less access to primary care. In turn, “many patients may not even receive a diagnosis for endocrine-related conditions, let alone the specialized care they need,” wrote the analyst. “Preventable conditions like diabetes spiral into severe complications.”

Lash said seeking out a primary care doctor is one option for those without access to an endocrinologist. Telemedicine has also helped expand access, said Lash, adding that endocrinologists have been among the more frequent users.

Even so, the shortage of endocrinologists is an ongoing problem, he said. Only about 5000-6000 endocrinologists are actively practicing, estimates The Endocrine Society.

Fewer medical school graduates are choosing endocrinology, in part because of the lack of compensation, said Lash.

The society has begun a push to interest more students. Starting in 2024, The Society awarded grants to 10 medical schools to start endocrinology interest groups. The Medical School Engagement Program also sponsors two students for a VIP-type experience at the annual scientific meeting.

The hope is to boost interest in fellowships, which come after 3 years of internal medicine residency. Currently, there are only about 11 applicants for every 10 fellowship spots, said Lash.

It may be a while before the society’s experiment bears fruit. Those entering medical school in 2024 would not be eligible for fellowship until 2031, noted Lash.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” he said. “We know that this problem is not going to get solved overnight.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:40
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:40
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:40
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:40

COVID-19 Takes a Greater Toll on Kidneys Than Pneumonia

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:38

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 survivors show a more pronounced decline in kidney function than those who recover from pneumonia caused by other infections. This decline in kidney function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), is particularly steep among individuals who require hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODOLOGY:

  • SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been associated with acute kidney injury, but its potential impact on long-term kidney function remains unclear.
  • Researchers investigated the decline in kidney function after COVID-19 vs pneumonia by including all hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements Project who had at least one eGFR measurement in the 2 years before a positive COVID-19 test result or pneumonia diagnosis.
  • Overall, 134,565 individuals (median age, 51 years; 55.6% women) who had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 2020 and January 2022 were included, of whom 13.3% required hospitalization within 28 days of their first positive COVID-19 test result.
  • They were compared with 35,987 patients (median age, 71 years; 53.8% women) who were diagnosed with pneumonia between February 2018 and January 2020; 46.5% of them required hospitalization.
  • The primary outcome measure focused on the mean annual change in eGFR slopes before and after each infection; the secondary outcome assessed was the annual change in postinfection eGFR slopes between COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Before COVID-19, eGFR changes were minimal, but after the infection, the average decline increased to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.8-4.4) mL/min/1.73 m2; however, in the pneumonia cohort, a decline in eGFR was noted both before and after the infection.
  • After COVID-19, the mean annual decline in eGFR was 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%), increasing to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) for those who were hospitalized.
  • In contrast, the pneumonia group experienced an average annual decline of 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%) after the infection, which remained unchanged when analyzing only patients who were hospitalized.
  • The risk for a 25% reduction in eGFR was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those with pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with the risk being even higher among those who required hospitalization (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings help inform decisions regarding the need to monitor kidney function in survivors of COVID-19 and could have implications for policymakers regarding future healthcare planning and kidney service provision,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Viyaasan Mahalingasivam, MPhil, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked information on important confounders such as ethnicity and body mass index. The follow-up period was not long enough to fully evaluate the long-term association of COVID-19 with kidney function. Some individuals may have been misclassified as nonhospitalized if their first infection was mild and a subsequent infection required hospitalization.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, and the Swedish Research Council. One author reported receiving a Career Development Award from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and another author reported receiving grants from Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Region Stockholm during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 survivors show a more pronounced decline in kidney function than those who recover from pneumonia caused by other infections. This decline in kidney function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), is particularly steep among individuals who require hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODOLOGY:

  • SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been associated with acute kidney injury, but its potential impact on long-term kidney function remains unclear.
  • Researchers investigated the decline in kidney function after COVID-19 vs pneumonia by including all hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements Project who had at least one eGFR measurement in the 2 years before a positive COVID-19 test result or pneumonia diagnosis.
  • Overall, 134,565 individuals (median age, 51 years; 55.6% women) who had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 2020 and January 2022 were included, of whom 13.3% required hospitalization within 28 days of their first positive COVID-19 test result.
  • They were compared with 35,987 patients (median age, 71 years; 53.8% women) who were diagnosed with pneumonia between February 2018 and January 2020; 46.5% of them required hospitalization.
  • The primary outcome measure focused on the mean annual change in eGFR slopes before and after each infection; the secondary outcome assessed was the annual change in postinfection eGFR slopes between COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Before COVID-19, eGFR changes were minimal, but after the infection, the average decline increased to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.8-4.4) mL/min/1.73 m2; however, in the pneumonia cohort, a decline in eGFR was noted both before and after the infection.
  • After COVID-19, the mean annual decline in eGFR was 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%), increasing to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) for those who were hospitalized.
  • In contrast, the pneumonia group experienced an average annual decline of 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%) after the infection, which remained unchanged when analyzing only patients who were hospitalized.
  • The risk for a 25% reduction in eGFR was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those with pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with the risk being even higher among those who required hospitalization (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings help inform decisions regarding the need to monitor kidney function in survivors of COVID-19 and could have implications for policymakers regarding future healthcare planning and kidney service provision,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Viyaasan Mahalingasivam, MPhil, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked information on important confounders such as ethnicity and body mass index. The follow-up period was not long enough to fully evaluate the long-term association of COVID-19 with kidney function. Some individuals may have been misclassified as nonhospitalized if their first infection was mild and a subsequent infection required hospitalization.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, and the Swedish Research Council. One author reported receiving a Career Development Award from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and another author reported receiving grants from Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Region Stockholm during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 survivors show a more pronounced decline in kidney function than those who recover from pneumonia caused by other infections. This decline in kidney function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), is particularly steep among individuals who require hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODOLOGY:

  • SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been associated with acute kidney injury, but its potential impact on long-term kidney function remains unclear.
  • Researchers investigated the decline in kidney function after COVID-19 vs pneumonia by including all hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements Project who had at least one eGFR measurement in the 2 years before a positive COVID-19 test result or pneumonia diagnosis.
  • Overall, 134,565 individuals (median age, 51 years; 55.6% women) who had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 2020 and January 2022 were included, of whom 13.3% required hospitalization within 28 days of their first positive COVID-19 test result.
  • They were compared with 35,987 patients (median age, 71 years; 53.8% women) who were diagnosed with pneumonia between February 2018 and January 2020; 46.5% of them required hospitalization.
  • The primary outcome measure focused on the mean annual change in eGFR slopes before and after each infection; the secondary outcome assessed was the annual change in postinfection eGFR slopes between COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Before COVID-19, eGFR changes were minimal, but after the infection, the average decline increased to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.8-4.4) mL/min/1.73 m2; however, in the pneumonia cohort, a decline in eGFR was noted both before and after the infection.
  • After COVID-19, the mean annual decline in eGFR was 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%), increasing to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) for those who were hospitalized.
  • In contrast, the pneumonia group experienced an average annual decline of 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%) after the infection, which remained unchanged when analyzing only patients who were hospitalized.
  • The risk for a 25% reduction in eGFR was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those with pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with the risk being even higher among those who required hospitalization (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings help inform decisions regarding the need to monitor kidney function in survivors of COVID-19 and could have implications for policymakers regarding future healthcare planning and kidney service provision,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Viyaasan Mahalingasivam, MPhil, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked information on important confounders such as ethnicity and body mass index. The follow-up period was not long enough to fully evaluate the long-term association of COVID-19 with kidney function. Some individuals may have been misclassified as nonhospitalized if their first infection was mild and a subsequent infection required hospitalization.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, and the Swedish Research Council. One author reported receiving a Career Development Award from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and another author reported receiving grants from Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Region Stockholm during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:36
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:36
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:36
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:36

Younger People and Long COVID: Underreported, Undertreated

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:33

John Bolecek, 41, of Richmond, Virginia, was diagnosed with long COVID in May of 2022. While his acute infection was mild, once everyone else in his family had recovered, the heavy fatigue he experienced from the start has never lifted.

“When I wake up in the morning, I feel like I haven’t gone to sleep at all,” Bolecek said. “It’s this super fatigue that’s just never gone away.”

The urban planner who once rode his bike to work daily and spent weekends cycling had to quit working and now can barely get through a light walk before long COVID symptoms of post-exertional malaise, an intense fatigue after previously tolerated physical or mental activity, set in. His unrefreshing sleep, fatigue, and dysautonomia — a disruption of the autonomic nervous system that causes dizziness, heart rate changes, and nausea — have made it nearly impossible to share household duties with his wife. She has to do most of the cooking, cleaning, and tending to their two sons, ages 6 and 8 years.

It’s an increasingly familiar story for those hit with long COVID in their prime, a period of life when young and middle-aged adults are the most productive and the busiest, often in the thick of parenting while also taking care of their aging parents. And it’s a group that is among the hardest hit by long COVID both because of the sheer number of patients with the condition and the mental and financial strain that it’s putting on this age group. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 6.9% of adults aged 18-34 years and 8.9% of adults aged 35-49 years have the disorder compared with 4.1% of older adults aged > 65 years who are the least likely to have long COVID.

In a study published recently in Scientific Reports, researchers found that in a population of California residents with long COVID, older individuals (who were sicker to start) had more severe symptoms associated with the condition. But researchers also found that younger people (aged 18-49 years) were more likely to experience symptoms that reduced their productivity and quality of life. They suggested this is both because they have more to do in a given day and because they have a longer life ahead of them living with a chronic condition.

“Much of California’s population falls within the 18-49 age group, [so] we would expect to see the highest overall burden coming from these individuals,” said lead study author Sophie Zhu, a researcher in the Division of Communicable Disease Control at the California Department of Public Health.

 

The Impact on Work and Life Productivity

Adults and especially those in middle age tend to have a lot of competing stressors during this period of life, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the UCLA Health Long COVID program. “Patients may need to decrease some of the pressures of life for their health and that can be impossible to do because they have so many other people who are depending on them.”

It’s a different set of circumstances compared with older individuals who may have more severe symptoms because they have underlying conditions. But older Americans are also more likely to be retired and don’t have children who are financially dependent on them. Previous research has shown the burden that long COVID is having on the workforce. A study published in the August 2023 edition of The Lancet Regional Health found that 5.8% of participating patients with long COVID reported occupational changes like moving to part time or remote work, including 1.6% who had completely dropped out of the workforce.

Middle age is also a time of life when patients may not have time to seek the care they need. The chronic nature of long COVID means that treatment can be time consuming and expensive, all of which drains resources from patients who are often supporting spouses, children, and sometimes older parents. A study published in Disability and Health Journal found that patients with long COVID have significantly higher rates of housing instability and financial concerns, such as worries about paying rent or a mortgage, than those without the condition.

 

The Financial Strain of Long COVID

For those who can’t work, the process of applying for long-term disability can also be complicated. That’s especially true for people whose illness keeps them from doing even basic tasks like filling out paperwork and dealing with disability insurance claims. It requires those applying as a result of their long COVID symptoms to show all records connected to long COVID as well as a medical history, the beginning of their symptoms, and their current treatments.

Even then, many patients complain of having their claims rejected, which can be financially disastrous to families already struggling to get by. Still, experts contend that it’s important to understand that as of July 2021, long COVID is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

“Long COVID is recognized as a disability under Section 504 of the ADA, and yet day after day, we see violations of the ADA for people with long COVID not getting the accommodations that they need in order to work,” said David Putrino, PhD, the Nash Family director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness at Mount Sinai in New York City and a renowned expert in long COVID.

He added that short- and long-term disability claims are sometimes denied because of a lack of diagnostic testing to prove a patient has the condition. “This is nonsensical and absurd because the CDC does not require a blood test for the diagnosis of long COVID. It’s at your physician’s discretion,” Putrino said.

Viswanathan agreed. She said that for many of her patients, getting long-term disability has been particularly challenging because there’s no blood test for long COVID to prove patients have the condition. “As a result, for many of our patients, especially when they’re young, they may have to return to work in one form or another,” Viswanathan said.

 

The Impact of Long COVID on Quality of Life

What’s worse, the full impact is yet unknown because this is likely an underestimated cohort as many of these patients had mild cases of acute COVID-19 and fewer underlying conditions. For others, their long COVID is undiagnosed.

“Much of the impact on productivity and quality of life for this group remains hidden,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Unfortunately, the impact on Bolecek’s life isn’t so hidden. He can’t work, which has been a financial stressor on the family. He spends much of the day in bed so that he can help with a few things when his wife gets home from work. He can’t cycle anymore and, as a result, has lost many of the friends associated with his favorite hobby.

But he remains hopeful, and more than anything else, he’s thankful for his family. His wife and kids have given him the strength to push on even when the days are hard. “I just don’t know where I’d be without them,” Bolecek said.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

John Bolecek, 41, of Richmond, Virginia, was diagnosed with long COVID in May of 2022. While his acute infection was mild, once everyone else in his family had recovered, the heavy fatigue he experienced from the start has never lifted.

“When I wake up in the morning, I feel like I haven’t gone to sleep at all,” Bolecek said. “It’s this super fatigue that’s just never gone away.”

The urban planner who once rode his bike to work daily and spent weekends cycling had to quit working and now can barely get through a light walk before long COVID symptoms of post-exertional malaise, an intense fatigue after previously tolerated physical or mental activity, set in. His unrefreshing sleep, fatigue, and dysautonomia — a disruption of the autonomic nervous system that causes dizziness, heart rate changes, and nausea — have made it nearly impossible to share household duties with his wife. She has to do most of the cooking, cleaning, and tending to their two sons, ages 6 and 8 years.

It’s an increasingly familiar story for those hit with long COVID in their prime, a period of life when young and middle-aged adults are the most productive and the busiest, often in the thick of parenting while also taking care of their aging parents. And it’s a group that is among the hardest hit by long COVID both because of the sheer number of patients with the condition and the mental and financial strain that it’s putting on this age group. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 6.9% of adults aged 18-34 years and 8.9% of adults aged 35-49 years have the disorder compared with 4.1% of older adults aged > 65 years who are the least likely to have long COVID.

In a study published recently in Scientific Reports, researchers found that in a population of California residents with long COVID, older individuals (who were sicker to start) had more severe symptoms associated with the condition. But researchers also found that younger people (aged 18-49 years) were more likely to experience symptoms that reduced their productivity and quality of life. They suggested this is both because they have more to do in a given day and because they have a longer life ahead of them living with a chronic condition.

“Much of California’s population falls within the 18-49 age group, [so] we would expect to see the highest overall burden coming from these individuals,” said lead study author Sophie Zhu, a researcher in the Division of Communicable Disease Control at the California Department of Public Health.

 

The Impact on Work and Life Productivity

Adults and especially those in middle age tend to have a lot of competing stressors during this period of life, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the UCLA Health Long COVID program. “Patients may need to decrease some of the pressures of life for their health and that can be impossible to do because they have so many other people who are depending on them.”

It’s a different set of circumstances compared with older individuals who may have more severe symptoms because they have underlying conditions. But older Americans are also more likely to be retired and don’t have children who are financially dependent on them. Previous research has shown the burden that long COVID is having on the workforce. A study published in the August 2023 edition of The Lancet Regional Health found that 5.8% of participating patients with long COVID reported occupational changes like moving to part time or remote work, including 1.6% who had completely dropped out of the workforce.

Middle age is also a time of life when patients may not have time to seek the care they need. The chronic nature of long COVID means that treatment can be time consuming and expensive, all of which drains resources from patients who are often supporting spouses, children, and sometimes older parents. A study published in Disability and Health Journal found that patients with long COVID have significantly higher rates of housing instability and financial concerns, such as worries about paying rent or a mortgage, than those without the condition.

 

The Financial Strain of Long COVID

For those who can’t work, the process of applying for long-term disability can also be complicated. That’s especially true for people whose illness keeps them from doing even basic tasks like filling out paperwork and dealing with disability insurance claims. It requires those applying as a result of their long COVID symptoms to show all records connected to long COVID as well as a medical history, the beginning of their symptoms, and their current treatments.

Even then, many patients complain of having their claims rejected, which can be financially disastrous to families already struggling to get by. Still, experts contend that it’s important to understand that as of July 2021, long COVID is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

“Long COVID is recognized as a disability under Section 504 of the ADA, and yet day after day, we see violations of the ADA for people with long COVID not getting the accommodations that they need in order to work,” said David Putrino, PhD, the Nash Family director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness at Mount Sinai in New York City and a renowned expert in long COVID.

He added that short- and long-term disability claims are sometimes denied because of a lack of diagnostic testing to prove a patient has the condition. “This is nonsensical and absurd because the CDC does not require a blood test for the diagnosis of long COVID. It’s at your physician’s discretion,” Putrino said.

Viswanathan agreed. She said that for many of her patients, getting long-term disability has been particularly challenging because there’s no blood test for long COVID to prove patients have the condition. “As a result, for many of our patients, especially when they’re young, they may have to return to work in one form or another,” Viswanathan said.

 

The Impact of Long COVID on Quality of Life

What’s worse, the full impact is yet unknown because this is likely an underestimated cohort as many of these patients had mild cases of acute COVID-19 and fewer underlying conditions. For others, their long COVID is undiagnosed.

“Much of the impact on productivity and quality of life for this group remains hidden,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Unfortunately, the impact on Bolecek’s life isn’t so hidden. He can’t work, which has been a financial stressor on the family. He spends much of the day in bed so that he can help with a few things when his wife gets home from work. He can’t cycle anymore and, as a result, has lost many of the friends associated with his favorite hobby.

But he remains hopeful, and more than anything else, he’s thankful for his family. His wife and kids have given him the strength to push on even when the days are hard. “I just don’t know where I’d be without them,” Bolecek said.

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

John Bolecek, 41, of Richmond, Virginia, was diagnosed with long COVID in May of 2022. While his acute infection was mild, once everyone else in his family had recovered, the heavy fatigue he experienced from the start has never lifted.

“When I wake up in the morning, I feel like I haven’t gone to sleep at all,” Bolecek said. “It’s this super fatigue that’s just never gone away.”

The urban planner who once rode his bike to work daily and spent weekends cycling had to quit working and now can barely get through a light walk before long COVID symptoms of post-exertional malaise, an intense fatigue after previously tolerated physical or mental activity, set in. His unrefreshing sleep, fatigue, and dysautonomia — a disruption of the autonomic nervous system that causes dizziness, heart rate changes, and nausea — have made it nearly impossible to share household duties with his wife. She has to do most of the cooking, cleaning, and tending to their two sons, ages 6 and 8 years.

It’s an increasingly familiar story for those hit with long COVID in their prime, a period of life when young and middle-aged adults are the most productive and the busiest, often in the thick of parenting while also taking care of their aging parents. And it’s a group that is among the hardest hit by long COVID both because of the sheer number of patients with the condition and the mental and financial strain that it’s putting on this age group. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 6.9% of adults aged 18-34 years and 8.9% of adults aged 35-49 years have the disorder compared with 4.1% of older adults aged > 65 years who are the least likely to have long COVID.

In a study published recently in Scientific Reports, researchers found that in a population of California residents with long COVID, older individuals (who were sicker to start) had more severe symptoms associated with the condition. But researchers also found that younger people (aged 18-49 years) were more likely to experience symptoms that reduced their productivity and quality of life. They suggested this is both because they have more to do in a given day and because they have a longer life ahead of them living with a chronic condition.

“Much of California’s population falls within the 18-49 age group, [so] we would expect to see the highest overall burden coming from these individuals,” said lead study author Sophie Zhu, a researcher in the Division of Communicable Disease Control at the California Department of Public Health.

 

The Impact on Work and Life Productivity

Adults and especially those in middle age tend to have a lot of competing stressors during this period of life, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the UCLA Health Long COVID program. “Patients may need to decrease some of the pressures of life for their health and that can be impossible to do because they have so many other people who are depending on them.”

It’s a different set of circumstances compared with older individuals who may have more severe symptoms because they have underlying conditions. But older Americans are also more likely to be retired and don’t have children who are financially dependent on them. Previous research has shown the burden that long COVID is having on the workforce. A study published in the August 2023 edition of The Lancet Regional Health found that 5.8% of participating patients with long COVID reported occupational changes like moving to part time or remote work, including 1.6% who had completely dropped out of the workforce.

Middle age is also a time of life when patients may not have time to seek the care they need. The chronic nature of long COVID means that treatment can be time consuming and expensive, all of which drains resources from patients who are often supporting spouses, children, and sometimes older parents. A study published in Disability and Health Journal found that patients with long COVID have significantly higher rates of housing instability and financial concerns, such as worries about paying rent or a mortgage, than those without the condition.

 

The Financial Strain of Long COVID

For those who can’t work, the process of applying for long-term disability can also be complicated. That’s especially true for people whose illness keeps them from doing even basic tasks like filling out paperwork and dealing with disability insurance claims. It requires those applying as a result of their long COVID symptoms to show all records connected to long COVID as well as a medical history, the beginning of their symptoms, and their current treatments.

Even then, many patients complain of having their claims rejected, which can be financially disastrous to families already struggling to get by. Still, experts contend that it’s important to understand that as of July 2021, long COVID is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

“Long COVID is recognized as a disability under Section 504 of the ADA, and yet day after day, we see violations of the ADA for people with long COVID not getting the accommodations that they need in order to work,” said David Putrino, PhD, the Nash Family director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness at Mount Sinai in New York City and a renowned expert in long COVID.

He added that short- and long-term disability claims are sometimes denied because of a lack of diagnostic testing to prove a patient has the condition. “This is nonsensical and absurd because the CDC does not require a blood test for the diagnosis of long COVID. It’s at your physician’s discretion,” Putrino said.

Viswanathan agreed. She said that for many of her patients, getting long-term disability has been particularly challenging because there’s no blood test for long COVID to prove patients have the condition. “As a result, for many of our patients, especially when they’re young, they may have to return to work in one form or another,” Viswanathan said.

 

The Impact of Long COVID on Quality of Life

What’s worse, the full impact is yet unknown because this is likely an underestimated cohort as many of these patients had mild cases of acute COVID-19 and fewer underlying conditions. For others, their long COVID is undiagnosed.

“Much of the impact on productivity and quality of life for this group remains hidden,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Unfortunately, the impact on Bolecek’s life isn’t so hidden. He can’t work, which has been a financial stressor on the family. He spends much of the day in bed so that he can help with a few things when his wife gets home from work. He can’t cycle anymore and, as a result, has lost many of the friends associated with his favorite hobby.

But he remains hopeful, and more than anything else, he’s thankful for his family. His wife and kids have given him the strength to push on even when the days are hard. “I just don’t know where I’d be without them,” Bolecek said.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:32
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:32
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:32
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 12:32

Doxycycline Kits Boost Chlamydia Treatment in ED

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:41

TOPLINE:

Doxycycline discharge kits significantly improve guideline-directed treatment and reduce time to definitive treatment in patients with chlamydia who were discharged from the emergency department (ED). 

METHODOLOGY:

  • A single-center retrospective chart review included adults with positive chlamydia tests in the ED between 2021 and 2023.
  • In total, 98 received doxycycline discharge kits; 72 patients were enrolled before the implementation of discharge kits for comparison.
  • There were no differences in symptoms of infection between patients who received and those who did not receive the kit.
  • Main outcome was the number of patients who received treatment.
  • Secondary outcomes included 90-day return visits for complaints of sexually transmitted infections and time to treatment initiation.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Appropriate treatment rates rose significantly post-implementation of the discharge kit (69.1% vs 45.8%; odds ratio, 2.63; P = .002).
  • Implementation of the discharge kit also reduced the time to definitive treatment from 22.7 hours to 1.3 hours (P < .001).
  • No significant differences in 90-day ED return visits, time to initial treatment in the ED, and doxycycline prescription via culture callback programs between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pharmacy-driven doxycycline discharge kits significantly increased guideline-directed treatment and decreased time to treatment for chlamydia infections in the ED population at an urban academic medical center,” the authors wrote. “Overall, this initiative overcame barriers to treatment for a significant public health issue, supporting the need for expansion to other emergency departments across the country.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Loudermilk, Department of Pharmacy, Louisville, Kentucky, and was published online on November 14, 2024, in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective design is the main limitation and lack of insurance fill history in some patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

TOPLINE:

Doxycycline discharge kits significantly improve guideline-directed treatment and reduce time to definitive treatment in patients with chlamydia who were discharged from the emergency department (ED). 

METHODOLOGY:

  • A single-center retrospective chart review included adults with positive chlamydia tests in the ED between 2021 and 2023.
  • In total, 98 received doxycycline discharge kits; 72 patients were enrolled before the implementation of discharge kits for comparison.
  • There were no differences in symptoms of infection between patients who received and those who did not receive the kit.
  • Main outcome was the number of patients who received treatment.
  • Secondary outcomes included 90-day return visits for complaints of sexually transmitted infections and time to treatment initiation.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Appropriate treatment rates rose significantly post-implementation of the discharge kit (69.1% vs 45.8%; odds ratio, 2.63; P = .002).
  • Implementation of the discharge kit also reduced the time to definitive treatment from 22.7 hours to 1.3 hours (P < .001).
  • No significant differences in 90-day ED return visits, time to initial treatment in the ED, and doxycycline prescription via culture callback programs between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pharmacy-driven doxycycline discharge kits significantly increased guideline-directed treatment and decreased time to treatment for chlamydia infections in the ED population at an urban academic medical center,” the authors wrote. “Overall, this initiative overcame barriers to treatment for a significant public health issue, supporting the need for expansion to other emergency departments across the country.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Loudermilk, Department of Pharmacy, Louisville, Kentucky, and was published online on November 14, 2024, in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective design is the main limitation and lack of insurance fill history in some patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Doxycycline discharge kits significantly improve guideline-directed treatment and reduce time to definitive treatment in patients with chlamydia who were discharged from the emergency department (ED). 

METHODOLOGY:

  • A single-center retrospective chart review included adults with positive chlamydia tests in the ED between 2021 and 2023.
  • In total, 98 received doxycycline discharge kits; 72 patients were enrolled before the implementation of discharge kits for comparison.
  • There were no differences in symptoms of infection between patients who received and those who did not receive the kit.
  • Main outcome was the number of patients who received treatment.
  • Secondary outcomes included 90-day return visits for complaints of sexually transmitted infections and time to treatment initiation.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Appropriate treatment rates rose significantly post-implementation of the discharge kit (69.1% vs 45.8%; odds ratio, 2.63; P = .002).
  • Implementation of the discharge kit also reduced the time to definitive treatment from 22.7 hours to 1.3 hours (P < .001).
  • No significant differences in 90-day ED return visits, time to initial treatment in the ED, and doxycycline prescription via culture callback programs between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pharmacy-driven doxycycline discharge kits significantly increased guideline-directed treatment and decreased time to treatment for chlamydia infections in the ED population at an urban academic medical center,” the authors wrote. “Overall, this initiative overcame barriers to treatment for a significant public health issue, supporting the need for expansion to other emergency departments across the country.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Loudermilk, Department of Pharmacy, Louisville, Kentucky, and was published online on November 14, 2024, in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective design is the main limitation and lack of insurance fill history in some patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:40
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:40
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:40
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:40

Coffee Consumption Linked to Specific Gut Bacterium

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:37

TOPLINE:

Coffee consumption is associated with the abundance of the gut bacterium Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticus, suggesting that specific foods can affect the intestinal microbiome.

METHODOLOGY:

  • The researchers selected coffee as a model to investigate the interplay between specific foods and the intestinal microbial community.
  • They conducted a multicohort, multiomic analysis of US and UK populations with detailed dietary information from 22,867 participants, which they then integrated with public data from 211 cohorts comprising 54,198 participants.
  • They conducted various in vitro experiments to expand and validate their findings, including adding coffee to media containing the L asaccharolyticus species that had been isolated from human feces.

TAKEAWAY:

  • L asaccharolyticus is highly prevalent, with about fourfold higher average abundance in coffee drinkers, and its growth is stimulated in vitro by coffee supplementation.
  • The link between coffee consumption and the microbiome was highly reproducible across different populations (area under the curve, 0.89), driven largely by the presence and abundance of L asaccharolyticus.
  • Similar associations were found in analyses of data from 25 countries. The prevalence of the bacterium was high in European countries with high per capita coffee consumption, such as Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden, and very low in countries with low per capita coffee consumption, such as China, Argentina, and India.
  • Plasma metabolomics on 438 samples identified several metabolites enriched among coffee drinkers, with quinic acid and its potential derivatives associated with both coffee and L asaccharolyticus.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides insights into how the gut microbiome potentially mediates the chemistry — and thus health benefits — of coffee,” the study authors wrote. “The microbial mechanisms underlying the metabolism of coffee are a step towards mapping the role of specific foods on the gut microbiome, and similar patterns of microorganism–food interactions for other dietary elements should be sought with systematic epidemiologic and metagenomic investigations.”

SOURCE:

Paolo Manghi, PhD, University of Trento, Italy, led the study, which was published online in Nature Microbiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on food questionnaires to assess coffee intake. The study is observational, and the clinical implications are unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by ZOE, a biotech company, and TwinsUK, an adult twin registry funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research — Clinical Research Network and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London. Manghi had no competing interests. Several other coauthors reported financial relationships with ZOE, and three are cofounders of the company.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

TOPLINE:

Coffee consumption is associated with the abundance of the gut bacterium Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticus, suggesting that specific foods can affect the intestinal microbiome.

METHODOLOGY:

  • The researchers selected coffee as a model to investigate the interplay between specific foods and the intestinal microbial community.
  • They conducted a multicohort, multiomic analysis of US and UK populations with detailed dietary information from 22,867 participants, which they then integrated with public data from 211 cohorts comprising 54,198 participants.
  • They conducted various in vitro experiments to expand and validate their findings, including adding coffee to media containing the L asaccharolyticus species that had been isolated from human feces.

TAKEAWAY:

  • L asaccharolyticus is highly prevalent, with about fourfold higher average abundance in coffee drinkers, and its growth is stimulated in vitro by coffee supplementation.
  • The link between coffee consumption and the microbiome was highly reproducible across different populations (area under the curve, 0.89), driven largely by the presence and abundance of L asaccharolyticus.
  • Similar associations were found in analyses of data from 25 countries. The prevalence of the bacterium was high in European countries with high per capita coffee consumption, such as Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden, and very low in countries with low per capita coffee consumption, such as China, Argentina, and India.
  • Plasma metabolomics on 438 samples identified several metabolites enriched among coffee drinkers, with quinic acid and its potential derivatives associated with both coffee and L asaccharolyticus.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides insights into how the gut microbiome potentially mediates the chemistry — and thus health benefits — of coffee,” the study authors wrote. “The microbial mechanisms underlying the metabolism of coffee are a step towards mapping the role of specific foods on the gut microbiome, and similar patterns of microorganism–food interactions for other dietary elements should be sought with systematic epidemiologic and metagenomic investigations.”

SOURCE:

Paolo Manghi, PhD, University of Trento, Italy, led the study, which was published online in Nature Microbiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on food questionnaires to assess coffee intake. The study is observational, and the clinical implications are unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by ZOE, a biotech company, and TwinsUK, an adult twin registry funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research — Clinical Research Network and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London. Manghi had no competing interests. Several other coauthors reported financial relationships with ZOE, and three are cofounders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

Coffee consumption is associated with the abundance of the gut bacterium Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticus, suggesting that specific foods can affect the intestinal microbiome.

METHODOLOGY:

  • The researchers selected coffee as a model to investigate the interplay between specific foods and the intestinal microbial community.
  • They conducted a multicohort, multiomic analysis of US and UK populations with detailed dietary information from 22,867 participants, which they then integrated with public data from 211 cohorts comprising 54,198 participants.
  • They conducted various in vitro experiments to expand and validate their findings, including adding coffee to media containing the L asaccharolyticus species that had been isolated from human feces.

TAKEAWAY:

  • L asaccharolyticus is highly prevalent, with about fourfold higher average abundance in coffee drinkers, and its growth is stimulated in vitro by coffee supplementation.
  • The link between coffee consumption and the microbiome was highly reproducible across different populations (area under the curve, 0.89), driven largely by the presence and abundance of L asaccharolyticus.
  • Similar associations were found in analyses of data from 25 countries. The prevalence of the bacterium was high in European countries with high per capita coffee consumption, such as Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden, and very low in countries with low per capita coffee consumption, such as China, Argentina, and India.
  • Plasma metabolomics on 438 samples identified several metabolites enriched among coffee drinkers, with quinic acid and its potential derivatives associated with both coffee and L asaccharolyticus.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides insights into how the gut microbiome potentially mediates the chemistry — and thus health benefits — of coffee,” the study authors wrote. “The microbial mechanisms underlying the metabolism of coffee are a step towards mapping the role of specific foods on the gut microbiome, and similar patterns of microorganism–food interactions for other dietary elements should be sought with systematic epidemiologic and metagenomic investigations.”

SOURCE:

Paolo Manghi, PhD, University of Trento, Italy, led the study, which was published online in Nature Microbiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on food questionnaires to assess coffee intake. The study is observational, and the clinical implications are unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by ZOE, a biotech company, and TwinsUK, an adult twin registry funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research — Clinical Research Network and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London. Manghi had no competing interests. Several other coauthors reported financial relationships with ZOE, and three are cofounders of the company.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:36
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:36
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:36
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/30/2024 - 11:36