CHEST Physician

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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:

Patients on weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have high residual gastric content, a major risk factor for aspiration under anesthesia, despite following fasting guidelines before undergoing elective procedures.

METHODOLOGY:

• The increasing use of GLP-1 RAs to manage weight and hyperglycemia has sparked safety concerns because of the drugs’ association with slow gastric emptying, a major risk factor for aspiration under anesthesia.
• This cross-sectional study used gastric ultrasonography to examine the link between GLP-1 RA use and the prevalence of increased residual gastric content.
• All 124 participants (median age, 56 years; 60% women) — half of whom received once-weekly GLP-1 RAs such as semaglutide, dulaglutide, or tirzepatide — adhered to the guideline-recommended fasting duration before undergoing elective procedures under anesthesia.
• The primary outcome focused on identifying increased residual gastric content, defined by the presence of solids, thick liquids, or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear liquids on ultrasound.
• An exploratory analysis examined the association between the duration of GLP-1 RA discontinuation and increased residual gastric content.

TAKEAWAY:

• The adjusted prevalence of increased residual gastric content was 30.5% (95% CI, 9.9%-51.2%) higher in participants who received GLP-1 RA than those who did not.
• Most patients took their last dose of GLP-1 RA within 5 days before their procedure, but elevated residual gastric content persisted even after 7 days of GLP-1 RA discontinuation.
• There was also no significant association between the type of GLP-1 RA used and the prevalence of increased residual gastric content.

IN PRACTICE:

“We expect healthcare professionals will encounter these classes of drugs with increasing frequency in the perioperative period. Perioperative physicians, including anesthesiologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians, should be well-informed about the safety implications of GLP-1 RA drugs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sudipta Sen, MD, from the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, and published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual gastric content, the primary outcome, served as a proxy for aspiration risk and does not have an exact threshold of volume associated with increased risk. The study did not directly evaluate aspiration events. The authors also acknowledged potential bias from unmeasured confounders owing to the observational nature of this study. A small sample size limited the ability to detect a risk difference for each additional day of drug discontinuation before surgery.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients on weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have high residual gastric content, a major risk factor for aspiration under anesthesia, despite following fasting guidelines before undergoing elective procedures.

METHODOLOGY:

• The increasing use of GLP-1 RAs to manage weight and hyperglycemia has sparked safety concerns because of the drugs’ association with slow gastric emptying, a major risk factor for aspiration under anesthesia.
• This cross-sectional study used gastric ultrasonography to examine the link between GLP-1 RA use and the prevalence of increased residual gastric content.
• All 124 participants (median age, 56 years; 60% women) — half of whom received once-weekly GLP-1 RAs such as semaglutide, dulaglutide, or tirzepatide — adhered to the guideline-recommended fasting duration before undergoing elective procedures under anesthesia.
• The primary outcome focused on identifying increased residual gastric content, defined by the presence of solids, thick liquids, or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear liquids on ultrasound.
• An exploratory analysis examined the association between the duration of GLP-1 RA discontinuation and increased residual gastric content.

TAKEAWAY:

• The adjusted prevalence of increased residual gastric content was 30.5% (95% CI, 9.9%-51.2%) higher in participants who received GLP-1 RA than those who did not.
• Most patients took their last dose of GLP-1 RA within 5 days before their procedure, but elevated residual gastric content persisted even after 7 days of GLP-1 RA discontinuation.
• There was also no significant association between the type of GLP-1 RA used and the prevalence of increased residual gastric content.

IN PRACTICE:

“We expect healthcare professionals will encounter these classes of drugs with increasing frequency in the perioperative period. Perioperative physicians, including anesthesiologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians, should be well-informed about the safety implications of GLP-1 RA drugs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sudipta Sen, MD, from the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, and published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual gastric content, the primary outcome, served as a proxy for aspiration risk and does not have an exact threshold of volume associated with increased risk. The study did not directly evaluate aspiration events. The authors also acknowledged potential bias from unmeasured confounders owing to the observational nature of this study. A small sample size limited the ability to detect a risk difference for each additional day of drug discontinuation before surgery.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients on weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have high residual gastric content, a major risk factor for aspiration under anesthesia, despite following fasting guidelines before undergoing elective procedures.

METHODOLOGY:

• The increasing use of GLP-1 RAs to manage weight and hyperglycemia has sparked safety concerns because of the drugs’ association with slow gastric emptying, a major risk factor for aspiration under anesthesia.
• This cross-sectional study used gastric ultrasonography to examine the link between GLP-1 RA use and the prevalence of increased residual gastric content.
• All 124 participants (median age, 56 years; 60% women) — half of whom received once-weekly GLP-1 RAs such as semaglutide, dulaglutide, or tirzepatide — adhered to the guideline-recommended fasting duration before undergoing elective procedures under anesthesia.
• The primary outcome focused on identifying increased residual gastric content, defined by the presence of solids, thick liquids, or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear liquids on ultrasound.
• An exploratory analysis examined the association between the duration of GLP-1 RA discontinuation and increased residual gastric content.

TAKEAWAY:

• The adjusted prevalence of increased residual gastric content was 30.5% (95% CI, 9.9%-51.2%) higher in participants who received GLP-1 RA than those who did not.
• Most patients took their last dose of GLP-1 RA within 5 days before their procedure, but elevated residual gastric content persisted even after 7 days of GLP-1 RA discontinuation.
• There was also no significant association between the type of GLP-1 RA used and the prevalence of increased residual gastric content.

IN PRACTICE:

“We expect healthcare professionals will encounter these classes of drugs with increasing frequency in the perioperative period. Perioperative physicians, including anesthesiologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians, should be well-informed about the safety implications of GLP-1 RA drugs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sudipta Sen, MD, from the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, and published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual gastric content, the primary outcome, served as a proxy for aspiration risk and does not have an exact threshold of volume associated with increased risk. The study did not directly evaluate aspiration events. The authors also acknowledged potential bias from unmeasured confounders owing to the observational nature of this study. A small sample size limited the ability to detect a risk difference for each additional day of drug discontinuation before surgery.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, have discovered that remnants of the COVID-19 virus can linger in blood and tissue for more than a year after a person is first infected.

In their research on long COVID, the scientists found COVID antigens in the blood for up to 14 months after infection, and in tissue samples for more than 2 years after infection. 

“These two studies provide some of the strongest evidence so far that COVID antigens can persist in some people, even though we think they have normal immune responses,” Michael Peluso, MD, an infectious disease researcher in the UCSF School of Medicine, who led both studies, said in a statement. 

Scientists don’t know what causes long COVID, in which symptoms of the illness persist months or years after recovery. The most common symptoms are extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of smell, and muscle aches.

The UCSF research team examined blood samples from 171 infected people and found the COVID “spike” protein was still present up to 14 months after infection in some people. The antigens were found more often in people who were hospitalized with COVID or who reported being very sick but were not hospitalized.

Researchers next looked at the UCSF Long COVID Tissue Bank, which contains samples donated by patients with and without long COVID. 

They found portions of viral RNA in the tissue up to 2 years after people were infected, though there was no evidence of reinfection. Those viral fragments were found in connective tissue where immune cells are, suggesting that the fragments caused the immune system to attack, according to the researchers. 

The UCSF team is running clinical trials to find out if monoclonal antibodies or antiviral drugs can remove the virus. 

The findings were presented in Denver this week at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, have discovered that remnants of the COVID-19 virus can linger in blood and tissue for more than a year after a person is first infected.

In their research on long COVID, the scientists found COVID antigens in the blood for up to 14 months after infection, and in tissue samples for more than 2 years after infection. 

“These two studies provide some of the strongest evidence so far that COVID antigens can persist in some people, even though we think they have normal immune responses,” Michael Peluso, MD, an infectious disease researcher in the UCSF School of Medicine, who led both studies, said in a statement. 

Scientists don’t know what causes long COVID, in which symptoms of the illness persist months or years after recovery. The most common symptoms are extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of smell, and muscle aches.

The UCSF research team examined blood samples from 171 infected people and found the COVID “spike” protein was still present up to 14 months after infection in some people. The antigens were found more often in people who were hospitalized with COVID or who reported being very sick but were not hospitalized.

Researchers next looked at the UCSF Long COVID Tissue Bank, which contains samples donated by patients with and without long COVID. 

They found portions of viral RNA in the tissue up to 2 years after people were infected, though there was no evidence of reinfection. Those viral fragments were found in connective tissue where immune cells are, suggesting that the fragments caused the immune system to attack, according to the researchers. 

The UCSF team is running clinical trials to find out if monoclonal antibodies or antiviral drugs can remove the virus. 

The findings were presented in Denver this week at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, have discovered that remnants of the COVID-19 virus can linger in blood and tissue for more than a year after a person is first infected.

In their research on long COVID, the scientists found COVID antigens in the blood for up to 14 months after infection, and in tissue samples for more than 2 years after infection. 

“These two studies provide some of the strongest evidence so far that COVID antigens can persist in some people, even though we think they have normal immune responses,” Michael Peluso, MD, an infectious disease researcher in the UCSF School of Medicine, who led both studies, said in a statement. 

Scientists don’t know what causes long COVID, in which symptoms of the illness persist months or years after recovery. The most common symptoms are extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of smell, and muscle aches.

The UCSF research team examined blood samples from 171 infected people and found the COVID “spike” protein was still present up to 14 months after infection in some people. The antigens were found more often in people who were hospitalized with COVID or who reported being very sick but were not hospitalized.

Researchers next looked at the UCSF Long COVID Tissue Bank, which contains samples donated by patients with and without long COVID. 

They found portions of viral RNA in the tissue up to 2 years after people were infected, though there was no evidence of reinfection. Those viral fragments were found in connective tissue where immune cells are, suggesting that the fragments caused the immune system to attack, according to the researchers. 

The UCSF team is running clinical trials to find out if monoclonal antibodies or antiviral drugs can remove the virus. 

The findings were presented in Denver this week at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to more traffic-related air pollution is associated with greater levels of amyloid plaques in the brain, with exposure in the 3 years before death having the greatest risk, a new postmortem study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
• They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
• The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

TAKEAWAY: 

The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m³ and 1.35 µg/m³ in the 3 years before death.

People with 1 µg/m³ higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).

A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to more traffic-related air pollution is associated with greater levels of amyloid plaques in the brain, with exposure in the 3 years before death having the greatest risk, a new postmortem study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
• They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
• The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

TAKEAWAY: 

The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m³ and 1.35 µg/m³ in the 3 years before death.

People with 1 µg/m³ higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).

A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to more traffic-related air pollution is associated with greater levels of amyloid plaques in the brain, with exposure in the 3 years before death having the greatest risk, a new postmortem study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
• They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
• The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

TAKEAWAY: 

The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m³ and 1.35 µg/m³ in the 3 years before death.

People with 1 µg/m³ higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).

A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.