Federal Practitioner

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

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.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

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.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

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.

Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.

The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. One study evaluated people who were using CPAP during sleep, and another study included people who didn’t use the device. People in both studies taking tirzepatide had significant reductions in sleep events and also lost about 20% of body weight. About 70% of people in the studies were men.

The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.

People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.

A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.

Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times. 

Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.

The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. One study evaluated people who were using CPAP during sleep, and another study included people who didn’t use the device. People in both studies taking tirzepatide had significant reductions in sleep events and also lost about 20% of body weight. About 70% of people in the studies were men.

The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.

People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.

A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.

Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times. 

Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.

The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. One study evaluated people who were using CPAP during sleep, and another study included people who didn’t use the device. People in both studies taking tirzepatide had significant reductions in sleep events and also lost about 20% of body weight. About 70% of people in the studies were men.

The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.

People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.

A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.

Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times. 

Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The ketogenic diet shows promise in reducing the symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and reversing metabolic syndrome, results of a new pilot study show. 

Participants who adhered to the high-fat, low-carb diet experienced a 30% reduction in psychiatric symptoms and an average 10% reduction in weight. 

“We’re seeing huge changes,” first author Shebani Sethi, MD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California said in a press release. “Even if you’re on antipsychotic drugs, we can still reverse the obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and the insulin resistance. I think that’s very encouraging for patients.”

The findings were published online in Psychiatric Research. 
 

Neuroprotective Effect? 

Recent research supports the hypothesis that psychiatric illness may stem, at least in part, from deficits in brain metabolism and that a keto diet may be neuroprotective by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. 

The pilot study included 21 participants with schizophrenia (n = 5) or bipolar disorder (n = 16) who were aged 18-75 years. All were currently taking psychotropic medications. Participants were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and had gained more than 5% of their body mass while taking psychotropic medication, or they had at least one metabolic abnormality, such as insulin resistance or dyslipidemia. 

At baseline, participants received a physical and psychiatric evaluation and 1 hour of instruction on how to implement the keto diet, which included 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat. 

Investigators monitored blood ketone levels at least once a week and defined participants as keto-adherent if their levels were 0.5-5 mM for 80%-100% of the times they were measured.

Health coaches checked in with participants for about 5-10 minutes each week to answer diet-related questions.

Psychiatric assessments, which included mood rating and global functioning scales, were completed at baseline, 2 months, and at the end of the 4-month study. 

The research team tracked participants’ adherence to the diet by weekly measurement of blood ketone levels. 

By the end of the trial, 14 patients had been fully adherent with the diet, six had been semi-adherent, and only one had been nonadherent. Higher ketone levels, suggesting greater adherence, correlated with better metabolic health.

As measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder–Overall Severity, participants experienced a 31% reduction in symptom severity (P < .001). Overall, 43% (P < .02) of participants achieved recovery as defined by the Clinical Mood Monitoring Form criteria: 50% of the adherent group and 33% of those who were semi-adherent.
 

Metabolic Benefits

Initially, 29% of participants had metabolic syndrome and more than 85% had co-occurring medical conditions such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, or prediabetes. By the end of the study, none met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

On average, participants experienced a 10% reduction in weight and BMI. Waist circumference was reduced by 11%, fat mass index dropped by 17%, and systolic blood pressure decreased by 6%. In addition, metabolic markers including visceral fat, inflammation, A1c, and insulin resistance also improved. All outcomes were significant at P < .001 except for systolic blood pressure, at P < .005.

There was also a 20% reduction in triglycerides and a 21% increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (both at P < .02). 

The study’s limitations include its small sample size, the lack of control arm, and short duration.

“Mental health and physical health are interconnected and addressing metabolic issues can complement psychiatric treatment to enhance overall well-being. Understanding the

mechanisms and potential synergies between psychiatric treatment and metabolic improvements can also inform the development of more effective interventions,” the researchers wrote. 

The study was funded by the Baszucki Group, Kuen Lau Fund, and the Obesity Treatment Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ketogenic diet shows promise in reducing the symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and reversing metabolic syndrome, results of a new pilot study show. 

Participants who adhered to the high-fat, low-carb diet experienced a 30% reduction in psychiatric symptoms and an average 10% reduction in weight. 

“We’re seeing huge changes,” first author Shebani Sethi, MD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California said in a press release. “Even if you’re on antipsychotic drugs, we can still reverse the obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and the insulin resistance. I think that’s very encouraging for patients.”

The findings were published online in Psychiatric Research. 
 

Neuroprotective Effect? 

Recent research supports the hypothesis that psychiatric illness may stem, at least in part, from deficits in brain metabolism and that a keto diet may be neuroprotective by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. 

The pilot study included 21 participants with schizophrenia (n = 5) or bipolar disorder (n = 16) who were aged 18-75 years. All were currently taking psychotropic medications. Participants were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and had gained more than 5% of their body mass while taking psychotropic medication, or they had at least one metabolic abnormality, such as insulin resistance or dyslipidemia. 

At baseline, participants received a physical and psychiatric evaluation and 1 hour of instruction on how to implement the keto diet, which included 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat. 

Investigators monitored blood ketone levels at least once a week and defined participants as keto-adherent if their levels were 0.5-5 mM for 80%-100% of the times they were measured.

Health coaches checked in with participants for about 5-10 minutes each week to answer diet-related questions.

Psychiatric assessments, which included mood rating and global functioning scales, were completed at baseline, 2 months, and at the end of the 4-month study. 

The research team tracked participants’ adherence to the diet by weekly measurement of blood ketone levels. 

By the end of the trial, 14 patients had been fully adherent with the diet, six had been semi-adherent, and only one had been nonadherent. Higher ketone levels, suggesting greater adherence, correlated with better metabolic health.

As measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder–Overall Severity, participants experienced a 31% reduction in symptom severity (P < .001). Overall, 43% (P < .02) of participants achieved recovery as defined by the Clinical Mood Monitoring Form criteria: 50% of the adherent group and 33% of those who were semi-adherent.
 

Metabolic Benefits

Initially, 29% of participants had metabolic syndrome and more than 85% had co-occurring medical conditions such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, or prediabetes. By the end of the study, none met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

On average, participants experienced a 10% reduction in weight and BMI. Waist circumference was reduced by 11%, fat mass index dropped by 17%, and systolic blood pressure decreased by 6%. In addition, metabolic markers including visceral fat, inflammation, A1c, and insulin resistance also improved. All outcomes were significant at P < .001 except for systolic blood pressure, at P < .005.

There was also a 20% reduction in triglycerides and a 21% increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (both at P < .02). 

The study’s limitations include its small sample size, the lack of control arm, and short duration.

“Mental health and physical health are interconnected and addressing metabolic issues can complement psychiatric treatment to enhance overall well-being. Understanding the

mechanisms and potential synergies between psychiatric treatment and metabolic improvements can also inform the development of more effective interventions,” the researchers wrote. 

The study was funded by the Baszucki Group, Kuen Lau Fund, and the Obesity Treatment Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ketogenic diet shows promise in reducing the symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and reversing metabolic syndrome, results of a new pilot study show. 

Participants who adhered to the high-fat, low-carb diet experienced a 30% reduction in psychiatric symptoms and an average 10% reduction in weight. 

“We’re seeing huge changes,” first author Shebani Sethi, MD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California said in a press release. “Even if you’re on antipsychotic drugs, we can still reverse the obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and the insulin resistance. I think that’s very encouraging for patients.”

The findings were published online in Psychiatric Research. 
 

Neuroprotective Effect? 

Recent research supports the hypothesis that psychiatric illness may stem, at least in part, from deficits in brain metabolism and that a keto diet may be neuroprotective by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. 

The pilot study included 21 participants with schizophrenia (n = 5) or bipolar disorder (n = 16) who were aged 18-75 years. All were currently taking psychotropic medications. Participants were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and had gained more than 5% of their body mass while taking psychotropic medication, or they had at least one metabolic abnormality, such as insulin resistance or dyslipidemia. 

At baseline, participants received a physical and psychiatric evaluation and 1 hour of instruction on how to implement the keto diet, which included 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat. 

Investigators monitored blood ketone levels at least once a week and defined participants as keto-adherent if their levels were 0.5-5 mM for 80%-100% of the times they were measured.

Health coaches checked in with participants for about 5-10 minutes each week to answer diet-related questions.

Psychiatric assessments, which included mood rating and global functioning scales, were completed at baseline, 2 months, and at the end of the 4-month study. 

The research team tracked participants’ adherence to the diet by weekly measurement of blood ketone levels. 

By the end of the trial, 14 patients had been fully adherent with the diet, six had been semi-adherent, and only one had been nonadherent. Higher ketone levels, suggesting greater adherence, correlated with better metabolic health.

As measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder–Overall Severity, participants experienced a 31% reduction in symptom severity (P < .001). Overall, 43% (P < .02) of participants achieved recovery as defined by the Clinical Mood Monitoring Form criteria: 50% of the adherent group and 33% of those who were semi-adherent.
 

Metabolic Benefits

Initially, 29% of participants had metabolic syndrome and more than 85% had co-occurring medical conditions such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, or prediabetes. By the end of the study, none met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

On average, participants experienced a 10% reduction in weight and BMI. Waist circumference was reduced by 11%, fat mass index dropped by 17%, and systolic blood pressure decreased by 6%. In addition, metabolic markers including visceral fat, inflammation, A1c, and insulin resistance also improved. All outcomes were significant at P < .001 except for systolic blood pressure, at P < .005.

There was also a 20% reduction in triglycerides and a 21% increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (both at P < .02). 

The study’s limitations include its small sample size, the lack of control arm, and short duration.

“Mental health and physical health are interconnected and addressing metabolic issues can complement psychiatric treatment to enhance overall well-being. Understanding the

mechanisms and potential synergies between psychiatric treatment and metabolic improvements can also inform the development of more effective interventions,” the researchers wrote. 

The study was funded by the Baszucki Group, Kuen Lau Fund, and the Obesity Treatment Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Vaporized cannabis containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) may provide rapid and sustained relief of acute migraine pain with no serious side effects, new research suggests. 

“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine. 

The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said. 

He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Sustained Pain Relief

Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking. 

The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.

Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.

The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.

Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.

The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.

The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. 

There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said. 

Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted. 

Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
 

Cautious Optimism

Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”

“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.

“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned. 

He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”

“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said. 

Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”

This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Vaporized cannabis containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) may provide rapid and sustained relief of acute migraine pain with no serious side effects, new research suggests. 

“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine. 

The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said. 

He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Sustained Pain Relief

Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking. 

The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.

Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.

The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.

Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.

The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.

The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. 

There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said. 

Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted. 

Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
 

Cautious Optimism

Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”

“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.

“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned. 

He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”

“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said. 

Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”

This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Vaporized cannabis containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) may provide rapid and sustained relief of acute migraine pain with no serious side effects, new research suggests. 

“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine. 

The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said. 

He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Sustained Pain Relief

Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking. 

The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.

Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.

The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.

Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.

The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.

The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. 

There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said. 

Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted. 

Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
 

Cautious Optimism

Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”

“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.

“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned. 

He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”

“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said. 

Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”

This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A mix of microbes may help explain why some people develop dry eye disease, new research showed.

This finding suggests that bacteria may cause dry eye and could someday point to new treatments for the condition and related disorders, which affect an estimated 27 million Americans, according to researchers.

Current treatments aim to preserve and enhance tears and tear production to ease the grittiness and itchiness that accompany dry eye disease. 

To examine the role of the ocular microbiome in dry eye disease, scientists in Texas analyzed swab samples from 30 men and women, nine of whom had dry eye.

They found Streptococcus and Pedobacter species were the most common bacteria in healthy eyes.

In people with dry eye, however, more Acinetobacter species were detected.

“We think the metabolites produced by these bacteria are responsible for dry eye conditions,” study coauthor Pallavi Sharma said in a news release about the findings. 

Sharma, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, presented this research last month at the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The research team was led by Alexandra Van Kley, PhD, a professor of biology at the university.

“Once we understand the eye microbiota properly, it will improve disease diagnosis at an early stage,” Van Kley predicted in the news release. “This knowledge can also serve as a catalyst for developing innovative therapies aimed at preventing and treating ocular disease as well as those that affect the central microbiome site: The gut.”

Investigators in Australia have conducted similar experiments in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, a condition marked by underproduction of key oils in the eye.

One group reported in August 2023 the finding of “detectable differences in the bacterial richness, diversity, and community structure of the conjunctiva and eyelid margin between individuals with meibomian gland dysfunction with and without lacrimal dysfunction, as well as to healthy controls.”

More research is needed to confirm and understand the findings, though, and “to determine if manipulating the microbiome could be a potential treatment for the condition,” they wrote.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A mix of microbes may help explain why some people develop dry eye disease, new research showed.

This finding suggests that bacteria may cause dry eye and could someday point to new treatments for the condition and related disorders, which affect an estimated 27 million Americans, according to researchers.

Current treatments aim to preserve and enhance tears and tear production to ease the grittiness and itchiness that accompany dry eye disease. 

To examine the role of the ocular microbiome in dry eye disease, scientists in Texas analyzed swab samples from 30 men and women, nine of whom had dry eye.

They found Streptococcus and Pedobacter species were the most common bacteria in healthy eyes.

In people with dry eye, however, more Acinetobacter species were detected.

“We think the metabolites produced by these bacteria are responsible for dry eye conditions,” study coauthor Pallavi Sharma said in a news release about the findings. 

Sharma, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, presented this research last month at the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The research team was led by Alexandra Van Kley, PhD, a professor of biology at the university.

“Once we understand the eye microbiota properly, it will improve disease diagnosis at an early stage,” Van Kley predicted in the news release. “This knowledge can also serve as a catalyst for developing innovative therapies aimed at preventing and treating ocular disease as well as those that affect the central microbiome site: The gut.”

Investigators in Australia have conducted similar experiments in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, a condition marked by underproduction of key oils in the eye.

One group reported in August 2023 the finding of “detectable differences in the bacterial richness, diversity, and community structure of the conjunctiva and eyelid margin between individuals with meibomian gland dysfunction with and without lacrimal dysfunction, as well as to healthy controls.”

More research is needed to confirm and understand the findings, though, and “to determine if manipulating the microbiome could be a potential treatment for the condition,” they wrote.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A mix of microbes may help explain why some people develop dry eye disease, new research showed.

This finding suggests that bacteria may cause dry eye and could someday point to new treatments for the condition and related disorders, which affect an estimated 27 million Americans, according to researchers.

Current treatments aim to preserve and enhance tears and tear production to ease the grittiness and itchiness that accompany dry eye disease. 

To examine the role of the ocular microbiome in dry eye disease, scientists in Texas analyzed swab samples from 30 men and women, nine of whom had dry eye.

They found Streptococcus and Pedobacter species were the most common bacteria in healthy eyes.

In people with dry eye, however, more Acinetobacter species were detected.

“We think the metabolites produced by these bacteria are responsible for dry eye conditions,” study coauthor Pallavi Sharma said in a news release about the findings. 

Sharma, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, presented this research last month at the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The research team was led by Alexandra Van Kley, PhD, a professor of biology at the university.

“Once we understand the eye microbiota properly, it will improve disease diagnosis at an early stage,” Van Kley predicted in the news release. “This knowledge can also serve as a catalyst for developing innovative therapies aimed at preventing and treating ocular disease as well as those that affect the central microbiome site: The gut.”

Investigators in Australia have conducted similar experiments in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, a condition marked by underproduction of key oils in the eye.

One group reported in August 2023 the finding of “detectable differences in the bacterial richness, diversity, and community structure of the conjunctiva and eyelid margin between individuals with meibomian gland dysfunction with and without lacrimal dysfunction, as well as to healthy controls.”

More research is needed to confirm and understand the findings, though, and “to determine if manipulating the microbiome could be a potential treatment for the condition,” they wrote.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.