Federal Practitioner

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Although moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, its adaptation remains limited in the United States.^1,2 MHRT theoretically exploits α/β ratio differences between the prostate (1.5 Gy), bladder (5-10 Gy), and rectum (3 Gy), thereby reducing late treatment-related adverse effects compared with those of conventional fractionation at biologically equivalent doses.^3-8 Multiple randomized noninferiority trials have demonstrated equivalent outcomes between MHRT and conventional fraction with no appreciable increase in patient-reported toxicity.^9-14 Although these studies have led to the acceptance of MHRT as a standard treatment, the majority of these trials involve individuals with low- and intermediate-risk disease.

There are less phase 3 data addressing MHRT for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).^10,12,14-17 Only 2 studies examined predominately high-risk populations, accounting for 83 and 292 patients, respectively.^15,16 Additional phase 3 trials with small proportions of high-risk patients (n = 126, 12%; n = 53, 35%) offer limited additional information regarding clinical outcomes and toxicity rates specific to high-risk disease.^10-12 Numerous phase 1 and 2 studies report various field designs and fractionation plans for MHRT in the context of high-risk disease, although the applicability of these data to off-trial populations remains limited.^18-20

Furthermore, African American individuals are underrepresented in the trials establishing the role of MHRT despite higher rates of prostate cancer incidence, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, and higher rates of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) when compared with White patients.²¹ Racial disparities across patients with prostate cancer and their management are multifactorial across health care literacy, education level, access to care (including transportation issues), and issues of adherence and distrust.^22-25 Correlation of patient race to prostate cancer outcomes varies greatly across health care systems, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) equal access system providing robust mental health services and transportation services for some patients, while demonstrating similar rates of stage-adjusted PCSS between African American and White patients across a broad range of treatment modalities.^26-28 Given the paucity of data exploring outcomes following MHRT for African American patients with HRPC, the present analysis provides long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for an off-trial majority African American population with HRPC treated with MHRT within the VA.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed under an institutional review board–approved protocol for all patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT at the Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in North Carolina between November 2008 and August 2018. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months of follow-up or elective nodal irradiation. Demographic variables obtained included age at diagnosis, race, clinical T stage, pre-MHRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade group at diagnosis, favorable vs unfavorable high-risk disease, pre-MHRT international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and pre-MHRT urinary medication usage (yes/no).²⁹

Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was initiated 6 to 8 weeks before MHRT unless medically contraindicated per the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Patients generally received 18 to 24 months of ADT, with those with favorable HRPC (ie, T1c disease with either Gleason 4+4 and PSA < 10 mg/mL or Gleason 3+3 and PSA > 20 ng/mL) receiving 6 months after 2015.²⁹ Patients were simulated supine in either standard or custom immobilization with a full bladder and empty rectum. MHRT fractionation plans included 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction and 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction. Radiotherapy targets included the prostate and seminal vesicles without elective nodal coverage per institutional practice. Treatments were delivered following image guidance, either prostate matching with cone beam computed tomography or fiducial matching with kilo voltage imaging. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. For plans delivering 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction, constraints included bladder V (volume receiving) 70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 15%, V40 ≤ 35%, rectum V70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 10%, V40 ≤ 35%, femoral heads maximum point dose ≤ 40 Gy, penile bulb mean dose ≤ 50 Gy, and small bowel V40 ≤ 1%. For plans delivering 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction, constraints included rectum V57 ≤ 15%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, bladder V60 ≤ 5%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, and femoral heads V43 ≤ 5%.

Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0, with acute toxicity defined as on-treatment < 3 months following completion of MHRT. Late toxicity was defined as ≥ 3 months following completion of MHRT. Individuals were seen in follow-up at 6 weeks and 3 months with PSA and testosterone after MHRT completion, then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter. Each follow-up visit included history, physical examination, IPSS, and CTCAE grading for GI and GU toxicity.

The Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test were used to compare differences in demographic data, dosimetric parameters, and frequency of toxicity events with respect to patient race. Clinical endpoints including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS; defined by Phoenix criteria as 2.0 above PSA nadir), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from time of radiotherapy completion by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between African American and White race by log-rank testing.³⁰ Late GI and GU toxicity-free survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared between African American and White patients by the log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

We identified 143 patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT between November 2008 and August 2018 (Table 1). Mean age was 65 years (range, 36-80 years); 57% were African American men. Eighty percent of individuals had unfavorable high-risk disease. Median (IQR) PSA was 14.4 (7.8-28.6). Twenty-six percent had grade group 1-3 disease, 47% had grade group 4 disease, and 27% had grade group 5 disease. African American patients had significantly lower pre-MHRT IPSS scores than White patients (mean IPSS, 11 vs 14, respectively; P = .02) despite similar rates of preradiotherapy urinary medication usage (66% and 66%, respectively).

Eighty-six percent received 70 Gy over 28 fractions, with institutional protocol shifting to 60 Gy over 20 fractions (14%) in June 2017. The median (IQR) duration of radiotherapy was 39 (38-42) days, with 97% of individuals undergoing ADT for a median (IQR) duration of 24 (24-36) months. The median follow-up time was 38 months, with 57 (40%) patients followed for at least 60 months.

Grade 3 GI and GU acute toxicity events were observed in 1% and 4% of all individuals, respectively (Table 2). No acute GI or GU grade 4+ events were observed. No significant differences in acute GU or GI toxicity were observed between African American and White patients.

Discussion

In this study, we reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates as well as clinical outcomes for a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access health care environment. We found that MHRT was well tolerated with high rates of biochemical control, PCSS, and OS. Additionally, outcomes were not significantly different across patient race. To our knowledge, this is the first report of MHRT for HRPC in a majority African American population.

We found that MHRT was an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, in particular those with unfavorable high-risk disease. While prior prospective and randomized studies have investigated the use of MHRT, our series was larger than most and had a predominately unfavorable high-risk population.^12,15-17 Our biochemical and PCSS rates compare favorably with those of HRPC trial populations, particularly given the high proportion of unfavorable high-risk disease.^12,15,16 Despite similar rates of biochemical control, OS was lower in the present cohort than in HRPC trial populations, even with a younger median age at diagnosis. The similarly high rates of non–HRPC-related death across race may reflect differences in baseline comorbidities compared with trial populations as well as reported differences between individuals in the VA and the private sector.³¹ This suggests that MHRT can be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable HRPC.

We did not find any differences in outcomes between African American and White individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT. Furthermore, our study demonstrates long-term rates of BRFS and PCSS in a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC that are comparable with those of prior randomized MHRT studies in high-risk, predominately White populations.^12,15,16 Prior reports have found that African American men with HRPC may be at increased risk for inferior clinical outcomes due to a number of socioeconomic, biologic, and cultural mediators.^26,27,32 Such individuals may disproportionally benefit from shorter treatment courses that improve access to radiotherapy, a well-documented disparity for African American men with localized prostate cancer.^33-36 The VA is an ideal system for studying racial disparities within prostate cancer, as accessibility of mental health and transportation services, income, and insurance status are not barriers to preventative or acute care.³⁷ Our results are concordant with those previously seen for African American patients with prostate cancer seen in the VA, which similarly demonstrate equal outcomes with those of other races.^28,36 Incorporation of the earlier mentioned VA services into oncologic care across other health care systems could better characterize determinants of racial disparities in prostate cancer, including the prognostic significance of shortening treatment duration and number of patient visits via MHRT.

Limitations

This study has several inherent limitations. While the size of the current HRPC cohort is notably larger than similar populations within the majority of phase 3 MHRT trials, these data derive from a single VA hospital. It is unclear whether these outcomes would be representative in a similar high-risk population receiving care outside of the VA equal access system. Follow-up data beyond 5 years was available for less than half of patients, partially due to nonprostate cancer–related mortality at a higher rate than observed in HRPC trial populations.^12,15,16 Furthermore, all GI toxicity events were exclusively physician reported, and GU toxicity reporting was limited in the off-trial setting with not all patients routinely completing IPSS questionnaires following MHRT completion. However, all patients were treated similarly, and radiation quality was verified over the treatment period with mandated accreditation, frequent standardized output checks, and systematic treatment review.³⁹

Conclusions

Patients with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access, off-trial setting demonstrated favorable rates of biochemical control with acceptable rates of acute and late GI and GU toxicities. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical control, were not significantly different between African American and White patients, which may reflect equal access to care within the VA irrespective of income and insurance status. Incorporating VA services, such as access to primary care, mental health services, and transportation across other health care systems may aid in characterizing and mitigating racial and gender disparities in oncologic care.  

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were presented at the November 2020 ASTRO conference. ⁴⁰

Although moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, its adaptation remains limited in the United States.^1,2 MHRT theoretically exploits α/β ratio differences between the prostate (1.5 Gy), bladder (5-10 Gy), and rectum (3 Gy), thereby reducing late treatment-related adverse effects compared with those of conventional fractionation at biologically equivalent doses.^3-8 Multiple randomized noninferiority trials have demonstrated equivalent outcomes between MHRT and conventional fraction with no appreciable increase in patient-reported toxicity.^9-14 Although these studies have led to the acceptance of MHRT as a standard treatment, the majority of these trials involve individuals with low- and intermediate-risk disease.

There are less phase 3 data addressing MHRT for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).^10,12,14-17 Only 2 studies examined predominately high-risk populations, accounting for 83 and 292 patients, respectively.^15,16 Additional phase 3 trials with small proportions of high-risk patients (n = 126, 12%; n = 53, 35%) offer limited additional information regarding clinical outcomes and toxicity rates specific to high-risk disease.^10-12 Numerous phase 1 and 2 studies report various field designs and fractionation plans for MHRT in the context of high-risk disease, although the applicability of these data to off-trial populations remains limited.^18-20

Furthermore, African American individuals are underrepresented in the trials establishing the role of MHRT despite higher rates of prostate cancer incidence, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, and higher rates of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) when compared with White patients.²¹ Racial disparities across patients with prostate cancer and their management are multifactorial across health care literacy, education level, access to care (including transportation issues), and issues of adherence and distrust.^22-25 Correlation of patient race to prostate cancer outcomes varies greatly across health care systems, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) equal access system providing robust mental health services and transportation services for some patients, while demonstrating similar rates of stage-adjusted PCSS between African American and White patients across a broad range of treatment modalities.^26-28 Given the paucity of data exploring outcomes following MHRT for African American patients with HRPC, the present analysis provides long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for an off-trial majority African American population with HRPC treated with MHRT within the VA.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed under an institutional review board–approved protocol for all patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT at the Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in North Carolina between November 2008 and August 2018. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months of follow-up or elective nodal irradiation. Demographic variables obtained included age at diagnosis, race, clinical T stage, pre-MHRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade group at diagnosis, favorable vs unfavorable high-risk disease, pre-MHRT international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and pre-MHRT urinary medication usage (yes/no).²⁹

Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was initiated 6 to 8 weeks before MHRT unless medically contraindicated per the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Patients generally received 18 to 24 months of ADT, with those with favorable HRPC (ie, T1c disease with either Gleason 4+4 and PSA < 10 mg/mL or Gleason 3+3 and PSA > 20 ng/mL) receiving 6 months after 2015.²⁹ Patients were simulated supine in either standard or custom immobilization with a full bladder and empty rectum. MHRT fractionation plans included 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction and 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction. Radiotherapy targets included the prostate and seminal vesicles without elective nodal coverage per institutional practice. Treatments were delivered following image guidance, either prostate matching with cone beam computed tomography or fiducial matching with kilo voltage imaging. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. For plans delivering 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction, constraints included bladder V (volume receiving) 70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 15%, V40 ≤ 35%, rectum V70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 10%, V40 ≤ 35%, femoral heads maximum point dose ≤ 40 Gy, penile bulb mean dose ≤ 50 Gy, and small bowel V40 ≤ 1%. For plans delivering 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction, constraints included rectum V57 ≤ 15%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, bladder V60 ≤ 5%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, and femoral heads V43 ≤ 5%.

Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0, with acute toxicity defined as on-treatment < 3 months following completion of MHRT. Late toxicity was defined as ≥ 3 months following completion of MHRT. Individuals were seen in follow-up at 6 weeks and 3 months with PSA and testosterone after MHRT completion, then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter. Each follow-up visit included history, physical examination, IPSS, and CTCAE grading for GI and GU toxicity.

The Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test were used to compare differences in demographic data, dosimetric parameters, and frequency of toxicity events with respect to patient race. Clinical endpoints including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS; defined by Phoenix criteria as 2.0 above PSA nadir), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from time of radiotherapy completion by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between African American and White race by log-rank testing.³⁰ Late GI and GU toxicity-free survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared between African American and White patients by the log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

We identified 143 patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT between November 2008 and August 2018 (Table 1). Mean age was 65 years (range, 36-80 years); 57% were African American men. Eighty percent of individuals had unfavorable high-risk disease. Median (IQR) PSA was 14.4 (7.8-28.6). Twenty-six percent had grade group 1-3 disease, 47% had grade group 4 disease, and 27% had grade group 5 disease. African American patients had significantly lower pre-MHRT IPSS scores than White patients (mean IPSS, 11 vs 14, respectively; P = .02) despite similar rates of preradiotherapy urinary medication usage (66% and 66%, respectively).

Eighty-six percent received 70 Gy over 28 fractions, with institutional protocol shifting to 60 Gy over 20 fractions (14%) in June 2017. The median (IQR) duration of radiotherapy was 39 (38-42) days, with 97% of individuals undergoing ADT for a median (IQR) duration of 24 (24-36) months. The median follow-up time was 38 months, with 57 (40%) patients followed for at least 60 months.

Grade 3 GI and GU acute toxicity events were observed in 1% and 4% of all individuals, respectively (Table 2). No acute GI or GU grade 4+ events were observed. No significant differences in acute GU or GI toxicity were observed between African American and White patients.

Discussion

In this study, we reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates as well as clinical outcomes for a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access health care environment. We found that MHRT was well tolerated with high rates of biochemical control, PCSS, and OS. Additionally, outcomes were not significantly different across patient race. To our knowledge, this is the first report of MHRT for HRPC in a majority African American population.

We found that MHRT was an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, in particular those with unfavorable high-risk disease. While prior prospective and randomized studies have investigated the use of MHRT, our series was larger than most and had a predominately unfavorable high-risk population.^12,15-17 Our biochemical and PCSS rates compare favorably with those of HRPC trial populations, particularly given the high proportion of unfavorable high-risk disease.^12,15,16 Despite similar rates of biochemical control, OS was lower in the present cohort than in HRPC trial populations, even with a younger median age at diagnosis. The similarly high rates of non–HRPC-related death across race may reflect differences in baseline comorbidities compared with trial populations as well as reported differences between individuals in the VA and the private sector.³¹ This suggests that MHRT can be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable HRPC.

We did not find any differences in outcomes between African American and White individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT. Furthermore, our study demonstrates long-term rates of BRFS and PCSS in a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC that are comparable with those of prior randomized MHRT studies in high-risk, predominately White populations.^12,15,16 Prior reports have found that African American men with HRPC may be at increased risk for inferior clinical outcomes due to a number of socioeconomic, biologic, and cultural mediators.^26,27,32 Such individuals may disproportionally benefit from shorter treatment courses that improve access to radiotherapy, a well-documented disparity for African American men with localized prostate cancer.^33-36 The VA is an ideal system for studying racial disparities within prostate cancer, as accessibility of mental health and transportation services, income, and insurance status are not barriers to preventative or acute care.³⁷ Our results are concordant with those previously seen for African American patients with prostate cancer seen in the VA, which similarly demonstrate equal outcomes with those of other races.^28,36 Incorporation of the earlier mentioned VA services into oncologic care across other health care systems could better characterize determinants of racial disparities in prostate cancer, including the prognostic significance of shortening treatment duration and number of patient visits via MHRT.

Limitations

This study has several inherent limitations. While the size of the current HRPC cohort is notably larger than similar populations within the majority of phase 3 MHRT trials, these data derive from a single VA hospital. It is unclear whether these outcomes would be representative in a similar high-risk population receiving care outside of the VA equal access system. Follow-up data beyond 5 years was available for less than half of patients, partially due to nonprostate cancer–related mortality at a higher rate than observed in HRPC trial populations.^12,15,16 Furthermore, all GI toxicity events were exclusively physician reported, and GU toxicity reporting was limited in the off-trial setting with not all patients routinely completing IPSS questionnaires following MHRT completion. However, all patients were treated similarly, and radiation quality was verified over the treatment period with mandated accreditation, frequent standardized output checks, and systematic treatment review.³⁹

Conclusions

Patients with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access, off-trial setting demonstrated favorable rates of biochemical control with acceptable rates of acute and late GI and GU toxicities. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical control, were not significantly different between African American and White patients, which may reflect equal access to care within the VA irrespective of income and insurance status. Incorporating VA services, such as access to primary care, mental health services, and transportation across other health care systems may aid in characterizing and mitigating racial and gender disparities in oncologic care.  

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were presented at the November 2020 ASTRO conference. ⁴⁰

Although moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, its adaptation remains limited in the United States.^1,2 MHRT theoretically exploits α/β ratio differences between the prostate (1.5 Gy), bladder (5-10 Gy), and rectum (3 Gy), thereby reducing late treatment-related adverse effects compared with those of conventional fractionation at biologically equivalent doses.^3-8 Multiple randomized noninferiority trials have demonstrated equivalent outcomes between MHRT and conventional fraction with no appreciable increase in patient-reported toxicity.^9-14 Although these studies have led to the acceptance of MHRT as a standard treatment, the majority of these trials involve individuals with low- and intermediate-risk disease.

There are less phase 3 data addressing MHRT for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).^10,12,14-17 Only 2 studies examined predominately high-risk populations, accounting for 83 and 292 patients, respectively.^15,16 Additional phase 3 trials with small proportions of high-risk patients (n = 126, 12%; n = 53, 35%) offer limited additional information regarding clinical outcomes and toxicity rates specific to high-risk disease.^10-12 Numerous phase 1 and 2 studies report various field designs and fractionation plans for MHRT in the context of high-risk disease, although the applicability of these data to off-trial populations remains limited.^18-20

Furthermore, African American individuals are underrepresented in the trials establishing the role of MHRT despite higher rates of prostate cancer incidence, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, and higher rates of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) when compared with White patients.²¹ Racial disparities across patients with prostate cancer and their management are multifactorial across health care literacy, education level, access to care (including transportation issues), and issues of adherence and distrust.^22-25 Correlation of patient race to prostate cancer outcomes varies greatly across health care systems, with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) equal access system providing robust mental health services and transportation services for some patients, while demonstrating similar rates of stage-adjusted PCSS between African American and White patients across a broad range of treatment modalities.^26-28 Given the paucity of data exploring outcomes following MHRT for African American patients with HRPC, the present analysis provides long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for an off-trial majority African American population with HRPC treated with MHRT within the VA.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed under an institutional review board–approved protocol for all patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT at the Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in North Carolina between November 2008 and August 2018. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months of follow-up or elective nodal irradiation. Demographic variables obtained included age at diagnosis, race, clinical T stage, pre-MHRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade group at diagnosis, favorable vs unfavorable high-risk disease, pre-MHRT international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and pre-MHRT urinary medication usage (yes/no).²⁹

Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was initiated 6 to 8 weeks before MHRT unless medically contraindicated per the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Patients generally received 18 to 24 months of ADT, with those with favorable HRPC (ie, T1c disease with either Gleason 4+4 and PSA < 10 mg/mL or Gleason 3+3 and PSA > 20 ng/mL) receiving 6 months after 2015.²⁹ Patients were simulated supine in either standard or custom immobilization with a full bladder and empty rectum. MHRT fractionation plans included 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction and 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction. Radiotherapy targets included the prostate and seminal vesicles without elective nodal coverage per institutional practice. Treatments were delivered following image guidance, either prostate matching with cone beam computed tomography or fiducial matching with kilo voltage imaging. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. For plans delivering 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction, constraints included bladder V (volume receiving) 70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 15%, V40 ≤ 35%, rectum V70 < 10 cc, V65 ≤ 10%, V40 ≤ 35%, femoral heads maximum point dose ≤ 40 Gy, penile bulb mean dose ≤ 50 Gy, and small bowel V40 ≤ 1%. For plans delivering 60 Gy at 3 Gy per fraction, constraints included rectum V57 ≤ 15%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, bladder V60 ≤ 5%, V46 ≤ 30%, V37 ≤ 50%, and femoral heads V43 ≤ 5%.

Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0, with acute toxicity defined as on-treatment < 3 months following completion of MHRT. Late toxicity was defined as ≥ 3 months following completion of MHRT. Individuals were seen in follow-up at 6 weeks and 3 months with PSA and testosterone after MHRT completion, then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years and annually thereafter. Each follow-up visit included history, physical examination, IPSS, and CTCAE grading for GI and GU toxicity.

The Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test were used to compare differences in demographic data, dosimetric parameters, and frequency of toxicity events with respect to patient race. Clinical endpoints including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS; defined by Phoenix criteria as 2.0 above PSA nadir), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from time of radiotherapy completion by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between African American and White race by log-rank testing.³⁰ Late GI and GU toxicity-free survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared between African American and White patients by the log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

We identified 143 patients with HRPC treated with definitive MHRT between November 2008 and August 2018 (Table 1). Mean age was 65 years (range, 36-80 years); 57% were African American men. Eighty percent of individuals had unfavorable high-risk disease. Median (IQR) PSA was 14.4 (7.8-28.6). Twenty-six percent had grade group 1-3 disease, 47% had grade group 4 disease, and 27% had grade group 5 disease. African American patients had significantly lower pre-MHRT IPSS scores than White patients (mean IPSS, 11 vs 14, respectively; P = .02) despite similar rates of preradiotherapy urinary medication usage (66% and 66%, respectively).

Eighty-six percent received 70 Gy over 28 fractions, with institutional protocol shifting to 60 Gy over 20 fractions (14%) in June 2017. The median (IQR) duration of radiotherapy was 39 (38-42) days, with 97% of individuals undergoing ADT for a median (IQR) duration of 24 (24-36) months. The median follow-up time was 38 months, with 57 (40%) patients followed for at least 60 months.

Grade 3 GI and GU acute toxicity events were observed in 1% and 4% of all individuals, respectively (Table 2). No acute GI or GU grade 4+ events were observed. No significant differences in acute GU or GI toxicity were observed between African American and White patients.

Discussion

In this study, we reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates as well as clinical outcomes for a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access health care environment. We found that MHRT was well tolerated with high rates of biochemical control, PCSS, and OS. Additionally, outcomes were not significantly different across patient race. To our knowledge, this is the first report of MHRT for HRPC in a majority African American population.

We found that MHRT was an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, in particular those with unfavorable high-risk disease. While prior prospective and randomized studies have investigated the use of MHRT, our series was larger than most and had a predominately unfavorable high-risk population.^12,15-17 Our biochemical and PCSS rates compare favorably with those of HRPC trial populations, particularly given the high proportion of unfavorable high-risk disease.^12,15,16 Despite similar rates of biochemical control, OS was lower in the present cohort than in HRPC trial populations, even with a younger median age at diagnosis. The similarly high rates of non–HRPC-related death across race may reflect differences in baseline comorbidities compared with trial populations as well as reported differences between individuals in the VA and the private sector.³¹ This suggests that MHRT can be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable HRPC.

We did not find any differences in outcomes between African American and White individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT. Furthermore, our study demonstrates long-term rates of BRFS and PCSS in a majority African American population with predominately unfavorable HRPC that are comparable with those of prior randomized MHRT studies in high-risk, predominately White populations.^12,15,16 Prior reports have found that African American men with HRPC may be at increased risk for inferior clinical outcomes due to a number of socioeconomic, biologic, and cultural mediators.^26,27,32 Such individuals may disproportionally benefit from shorter treatment courses that improve access to radiotherapy, a well-documented disparity for African American men with localized prostate cancer.^33-36 The VA is an ideal system for studying racial disparities within prostate cancer, as accessibility of mental health and transportation services, income, and insurance status are not barriers to preventative or acute care.³⁷ Our results are concordant with those previously seen for African American patients with prostate cancer seen in the VA, which similarly demonstrate equal outcomes with those of other races.^28,36 Incorporation of the earlier mentioned VA services into oncologic care across other health care systems could better characterize determinants of racial disparities in prostate cancer, including the prognostic significance of shortening treatment duration and number of patient visits via MHRT.

Limitations

This study has several inherent limitations. While the size of the current HRPC cohort is notably larger than similar populations within the majority of phase 3 MHRT trials, these data derive from a single VA hospital. It is unclear whether these outcomes would be representative in a similar high-risk population receiving care outside of the VA equal access system. Follow-up data beyond 5 years was available for less than half of patients, partially due to nonprostate cancer–related mortality at a higher rate than observed in HRPC trial populations.^12,15,16 Furthermore, all GI toxicity events were exclusively physician reported, and GU toxicity reporting was limited in the off-trial setting with not all patients routinely completing IPSS questionnaires following MHRT completion. However, all patients were treated similarly, and radiation quality was verified over the treatment period with mandated accreditation, frequent standardized output checks, and systematic treatment review.³⁹

Conclusions

Patients with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access, off-trial setting demonstrated favorable rates of biochemical control with acceptable rates of acute and late GI and GU toxicities. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical control, were not significantly different between African American and White patients, which may reflect equal access to care within the VA irrespective of income and insurance status. Incorporating VA services, such as access to primary care, mental health services, and transportation across other health care systems may aid in characterizing and mitigating racial and gender disparities in oncologic care.  

Acknowledgments

Portions of this work were presented at the November 2020 ASTRO conference. ⁴⁰

In a randomized, controlled trial, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) combined with lifestyle modifications was safe and effective for weight loss among individuals with class I and class II obesity, compared with lifestyle modifications alone.

“Lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapy have several limitations, and the use of bariatric surgery is hampered by its invasive nature and patient perceptions,” the study authors wrote. ESG is a minimally invasive, reversible, organ-sparing bariatric procedure that might be able to fill those care gaps, they explained.

Previous retrospective studies have suggested that ESG is effective, and a meta-analysis of 1,772 patients found an average total body weight loss of 15.1% at 6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.3%-16.0%) and 16.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 15.2%-17.8%). However, according to the authors of the current study, known as MERIT and published in the Lancet, there have been no randomized clinical trials investigating ESG's efficacy to date.

“[This is] the kind of study that we have been looking forward to. The outcomes were very impressive,” said Danny Issa, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. meta-analysis of 1,772 patients found an average total body weight loss of 15.1% at 6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.3%-16.0%) and 16.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 15.2%-17.8%).

Understanding the study and its results

Between December 2017 and June 2019, the researchers randomized 209 participants to ESG plus lifestyle modification or lifestyle modification only, which served as the control. The mean age was 47.3 in the ESG group (88% female) and 45.7 in the control group (84% female). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 35.5 kg/m² in the ESG group and 35.7 among controls.

After 1 year, the intervention group had a mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) of 49.2% , compared with 3.2% for the control group (P < .0001). The mean percentage of total body weight lost was 13.6% in the ESG group and 0.8% in the control group (P < .0001). After adjustment for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and baseline BMI, the ESG group had a mean difference of excess weight loss of 44.7% (95% CI, 37.5%-51.9%) and a mean difference of total weight loss of 12.6% (95% CI, 10.7%-14.5%), compared with the control group at 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, 77% of the ESG group had at least a 25% excess weight loss, which was the secondary endpoint, compared with 12% of the control group (P < .0001).

Overall, 80% of the ESG group had an improvement in at least one metabolic comorbidity, while 12% experienced a worsening. Among the control group, 45% had an improvement and 50% worsened. Among 27 patients in the treatment group with diabetes, 93% experienced an improvement in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with 15% of patients with diabetes in the control group. Similarly among patients with hypertension, 60% in the intervention group had an improvement, compared with 40% of controls. Of those with metabolic syndrome, 83% improved after undergoing surgery, compared with 35% of controls.

At 2 years, 68% of the ESG group who achieved a 25% EWL continued to have at least 25% EWL; 2% in the treatment group had a serious ESG-related adverse event, but there was no mortality or need for intensive care or follow-up surgery.
 

Aiming for level I evidence

“The results are very encouraging, so I think it’s good news for the field of bariatric endoscopy. I think it’s going to provide more confidence to patients and physicians, and for new trainees who are interested in this field, I think it’s going to inspire them,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Singh is an associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

The study could also improve insurance coverage of the procedure, said Dr. Singh. “I think this study will help us reach out to the payers and give them the data behind this because they always look for level I evidence. ESG is a relatively new endoscopic procedure; I think this is a step forward in that direction,” he said.

The study underlines the applicability of the procedure to patients who don’t want more invasive surgery, or who can’t tolerate some of the higher efficacy medications that are increasingly available.

It is also just one of various options for obesity treatment, which are increasingly being used in combination, according to Avlin Imaeda, MD. “Just like we see in hypertension, where you progressively add more and more medications, I think we’re going to see obesity treatment go that way too. I see this as adding choice for patients and adding to this potentially multimodal approach,” said Dr. Imaeda, an associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study.

The study authors report various financial relationships, including some with Apollo Endosurgery, which funded this study. Dr. Issa and Dr. Imaeda have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Singh is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery.

This article was updated Aug. 18, 2022.

In a randomized, controlled trial, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) combined with lifestyle modifications was safe and effective for weight loss among individuals with class I and class II obesity, compared with lifestyle modifications alone.

“Lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapy have several limitations, and the use of bariatric surgery is hampered by its invasive nature and patient perceptions,” the study authors wrote. ESG is a minimally invasive, reversible, organ-sparing bariatric procedure that might be able to fill those care gaps, they explained.

Previous retrospective studies have suggested that ESG is effective, and a meta-analysis of 1,772 patients found an average total body weight loss of 15.1% at 6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.3%-16.0%) and 16.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 15.2%-17.8%). However, according to the authors of the current study, known as MERIT and published in the Lancet, there have been no randomized clinical trials investigating ESG's efficacy to date.

“[This is] the kind of study that we have been looking forward to. The outcomes were very impressive,” said Danny Issa, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. meta-analysis of 1,772 patients found an average total body weight loss of 15.1% at 6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.3%-16.0%) and 16.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 15.2%-17.8%).

Understanding the study and its results

Between December 2017 and June 2019, the researchers randomized 209 participants to ESG plus lifestyle modification or lifestyle modification only, which served as the control. The mean age was 47.3 in the ESG group (88% female) and 45.7 in the control group (84% female). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 35.5 kg/m² in the ESG group and 35.7 among controls.

After 1 year, the intervention group had a mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) of 49.2% , compared with 3.2% for the control group (P < .0001). The mean percentage of total body weight lost was 13.6% in the ESG group and 0.8% in the control group (P < .0001). After adjustment for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and baseline BMI, the ESG group had a mean difference of excess weight loss of 44.7% (95% CI, 37.5%-51.9%) and a mean difference of total weight loss of 12.6% (95% CI, 10.7%-14.5%), compared with the control group at 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, 77% of the ESG group had at least a 25% excess weight loss, which was the secondary endpoint, compared with 12% of the control group (P < .0001).

Overall, 80% of the ESG group had an improvement in at least one metabolic comorbidity, while 12% experienced a worsening. Among the control group, 45% had an improvement and 50% worsened. Among 27 patients in the treatment group with diabetes, 93% experienced an improvement in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with 15% of patients with diabetes in the control group. Similarly among patients with hypertension, 60% in the intervention group had an improvement, compared with 40% of controls. Of those with metabolic syndrome, 83% improved after undergoing surgery, compared with 35% of controls.

At 2 years, 68% of the ESG group who achieved a 25% EWL continued to have at least 25% EWL; 2% in the treatment group had a serious ESG-related adverse event, but there was no mortality or need for intensive care or follow-up surgery.
 

Aiming for level I evidence

“The results are very encouraging, so I think it’s good news for the field of bariatric endoscopy. I think it’s going to provide more confidence to patients and physicians, and for new trainees who are interested in this field, I think it’s going to inspire them,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Singh is an associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

The study could also improve insurance coverage of the procedure, said Dr. Singh. “I think this study will help us reach out to the payers and give them the data behind this because they always look for level I evidence. ESG is a relatively new endoscopic procedure; I think this is a step forward in that direction,” he said.

The study underlines the applicability of the procedure to patients who don’t want more invasive surgery, or who can’t tolerate some of the higher efficacy medications that are increasingly available.

It is also just one of various options for obesity treatment, which are increasingly being used in combination, according to Avlin Imaeda, MD. “Just like we see in hypertension, where you progressively add more and more medications, I think we’re going to see obesity treatment go that way too. I see this as adding choice for patients and adding to this potentially multimodal approach,” said Dr. Imaeda, an associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study.

The study authors report various financial relationships, including some with Apollo Endosurgery, which funded this study. Dr. Issa and Dr. Imaeda have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Singh is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery.

This article was updated Aug. 18, 2022.

In a randomized, controlled trial, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) combined with lifestyle modifications was safe and effective for weight loss among individuals with class I and class II obesity, compared with lifestyle modifications alone.

“Lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapy have several limitations, and the use of bariatric surgery is hampered by its invasive nature and patient perceptions,” the study authors wrote. ESG is a minimally invasive, reversible, organ-sparing bariatric procedure that might be able to fill those care gaps, they explained.

Previous retrospective studies have suggested that ESG is effective, and a meta-analysis of 1,772 patients found an average total body weight loss of 15.1% at 6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.3%-16.0%) and 16.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 15.2%-17.8%). However, according to the authors of the current study, known as MERIT and published in the Lancet, there have been no randomized clinical trials investigating ESG's efficacy to date.

“[This is] the kind of study that we have been looking forward to. The outcomes were very impressive,” said Danny Issa, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. meta-analysis of 1,772 patients found an average total body weight loss of 15.1% at 6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.3%-16.0%) and 16.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 15.2%-17.8%).

Understanding the study and its results

Between December 2017 and June 2019, the researchers randomized 209 participants to ESG plus lifestyle modification or lifestyle modification only, which served as the control. The mean age was 47.3 in the ESG group (88% female) and 45.7 in the control group (84% female). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 35.5 kg/m² in the ESG group and 35.7 among controls.

After 1 year, the intervention group had a mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) of 49.2% , compared with 3.2% for the control group (P < .0001). The mean percentage of total body weight lost was 13.6% in the ESG group and 0.8% in the control group (P < .0001). After adjustment for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and baseline BMI, the ESG group had a mean difference of excess weight loss of 44.7% (95% CI, 37.5%-51.9%) and a mean difference of total weight loss of 12.6% (95% CI, 10.7%-14.5%), compared with the control group at 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, 77% of the ESG group had at least a 25% excess weight loss, which was the secondary endpoint, compared with 12% of the control group (P < .0001).

Overall, 80% of the ESG group had an improvement in at least one metabolic comorbidity, while 12% experienced a worsening. Among the control group, 45% had an improvement and 50% worsened. Among 27 patients in the treatment group with diabetes, 93% experienced an improvement in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with 15% of patients with diabetes in the control group. Similarly among patients with hypertension, 60% in the intervention group had an improvement, compared with 40% of controls. Of those with metabolic syndrome, 83% improved after undergoing surgery, compared with 35% of controls.

At 2 years, 68% of the ESG group who achieved a 25% EWL continued to have at least 25% EWL; 2% in the treatment group had a serious ESG-related adverse event, but there was no mortality or need for intensive care or follow-up surgery.
 

Aiming for level I evidence

“The results are very encouraging, so I think it’s good news for the field of bariatric endoscopy. I think it’s going to provide more confidence to patients and physicians, and for new trainees who are interested in this field, I think it’s going to inspire them,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Singh is an associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

The study could also improve insurance coverage of the procedure, said Dr. Singh. “I think this study will help us reach out to the payers and give them the data behind this because they always look for level I evidence. ESG is a relatively new endoscopic procedure; I think this is a step forward in that direction,” he said.

The study underlines the applicability of the procedure to patients who don’t want more invasive surgery, or who can’t tolerate some of the higher efficacy medications that are increasingly available.

It is also just one of various options for obesity treatment, which are increasingly being used in combination, according to Avlin Imaeda, MD. “Just like we see in hypertension, where you progressively add more and more medications, I think we’re going to see obesity treatment go that way too. I see this as adding choice for patients and adding to this potentially multimodal approach,” said Dr. Imaeda, an associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study.

The study authors report various financial relationships, including some with Apollo Endosurgery, which funded this study. Dr. Issa and Dr. Imaeda have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Singh is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery.

This article was updated Aug. 18, 2022.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Stress, meet weight gain. Weight gain, meet stress

You’re not eating differently and you’re keeping active, but your waistline is expanding. How is that happening? Since eating healthy and exercising shouldn’t make you gain weight, there may be a hidden factor getting in your way. Stress. The one thing that can have a grip on your circadian rhythm stronger than any bodybuilder.

Francesca Bellini/iStock/Getty Images

Investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine published two mouse studies that suggest stress and other factors that throw the body’s circadian clocks out of rhythm may contribute to weight gain.

In the first study, the researchers imitated disruptive condition effects like high cortisol exposure and chronic stress by implanting pellets under the skin that released glucocorticoid at a constant rate for 21 days. Mice that received the pellets had twice as much white and brown fat, as well as much higher insulin levels, regardless of their unchanged and still-healthy diet.

In the second study, they used tagged proteins as markers to monitor the daily fluctuations of a protein that regulates fat cell production and circadian gene expression in mouse fat cell precursors. The results showed “that fat cell precursors commit to becoming fat cells only during the circadian cycle phase corresponding to evening in humans,” they said in a written statement.

“Every cell in our body has an intrinsic cell clock, just like the fat cells, and we have a master clock in our brain, which controls hormone secretion,” said senior author Mary Teruel of Cornell University. “A lot of forces are working against a healthy metabolism when we are out of circadian rhythm. The more we understand, the more likely we will be able to do something about it.”

So if you’re stressing out that the scale is or isn’t moving in the direction you want, you could be standing in your own way. Take a chill pill.
 

Who can smell cancer? The locust nose

If you need to smell some gas, there’s nothing better than a nose. Just ask a scientist: “Noses are still state of the art,” said Debajit Saha, PhD, of Michigan State University. “There’s really nothing like them when it comes to gas sensing.”

Derrick L. Turner

And when it comes to noses, dogs are best, right? After all, there’s a reason we don’t have bomb-sniffing wombats and drug-sniffing ostriches. Dogs are better. Better, but not perfect. And if they’re not perfect, then human technology can do better.

Enter the electronic nose. Which is better than dogs … except that it isn’t. “People have been working on ‘electronic noses’ for more than 15 years, but they’re still not close to achieving what biology can do seamlessly,” Dr. Saha explained in a statement from the university.

Which brings us back to dogs. If you want to detect early-stage cancer using smell, you go to the dogs, right? Nope.

Here’s Christopher Contag, PhD, also of Michigan State, who recruited Dr. Saha to the university: “I told him, ‘When you come here, we’ll detect cancer. I’m sure your locusts can do it.’ ”

Yes, locusts. Dr. Contag and his research team were looking at mouth cancers and noticed that different cell lines had different appearances. Then they discovered that those different-looking cell lines produced different metabolites, some of which were volatile.

Enter Dr. Saha’s locusts. They were able to tell the difference between normal cells and cancer cells and could even distinguish between the different cell lines. And how they were able to share this information? Not voluntarily, that’s for sure. The researchers attached electrodes to the insects’ brains and recorded their responses to gas samples from both healthy and cancer cells. Those brain signals were then used to create chemical profiles of the different cells. Piece of cake.

The whole getting-electrodes-attached-to-their-brains thing seemed at least a bit ethically ambiguous, so we contacted the locusts’ PR office, which offered some positive spin: “Humans get their early cancer detection and we get that whole swarms-that-devour-entire-countrysides thing off our backs. Win win.”
 

Bad news for vampires everywhere

Pop culture has been extraordinarily kind to the vampire. A few hundred years ago, vampires were demon-possessed, often-inhuman monsters. Now? They’re suave, sophisticated, beautiful, and oh-so dramatic and angst-filled about their “curse.” Drink a little human blood, live and look young forever. Such monsters they are.

eakkachaister/Thinkstock

It does make sense in a morbid sort of way. An old person receiving the blood of the young does seem like a good idea for rejuvenation, right? A team of Ukrainian researchers sought to find out, conducting a study in which older mice were linked with young mice via heterochronic parabiosis. For 3 months, old-young mice pairs were surgically connected and shared blood. After 3 months, the mice were disconnected from each other and the effects of the blood link were studied.

For all the vampire enthusiasts out there, we have bad news and worse news. The bad news first: The older mice received absolutely no benefit from heterochronic parabiosis. No youthfulness, no increased lifespan, nothing. The worse news is that the younger mice were adversely affected by the older blood. They aged more and experienced a shortened lifespan, even after the connection was severed. The old blood, according to the investigators, contains factors capable of inducing aging in younger mice, but the opposite is not true. Further research into aging, they added, should focus on suppressing the aging factors in older blood.

Of note, the paper was written by doctors who are currently refugees, fleeing the war in Ukraine. We don’t want to speculate on the true cause of the war, but we’re onto you, Putin. We know you wanted the vampire research for yourself, but it won’t work. Your dream of becoming Vlad “Dracula” Putin will never come to pass.
 

Hearing is not always believing

Have you ever heard yourself on a voice mail, or from a recording you did at work? No matter how good you sound, you still might feel like the recording sounds nothing like you. It may even cause low self-esteem for those who don’t like how their voice sounds or don’t recognize it when it’s played back to them.

Hiroshi Imamizu, University of Tokyo

Since one possible symptom of schizophrenia is not recognizing one’s own speech and having a false sense of control over actions, and those with schizophrenia may hallucinate or hear voices, not being able to recognize their own voices may be alarming.

A recent study on the sense of agency, or sense of control, involved having volunteers speak with different pitches in their voices and then having it played back to them to gauge their reactions.

“Our results demonstrate that hearing one’s own voice is a critical factor to increased self-agency over speech. In other words, we do not strongly feel that ‘I’ am generating the speech if we hear someone else’s voice as an outcome of the speech. Our study provides empirical evidence of the tight link between the sense of agency and self-voice identity,” lead author Ryu Ohata, PhD, of the University of Tokyo, said in a written statement.

As social interaction becomes more digital through platforms such as FaceTime, Zoom, and voicemail, especially since the pandemic has promoted social distancing, it makes sense that people may be more aware and more surprised by how they sound on recordings.

So, if you ever promised someone something that you don’t want to do, and they play it back to you from the recording you made, maybe you can just say you don’t recognize the voice. And if it’s not you, then you don’t have to do it.
 

Stress, meet weight gain. Weight gain, meet stress

You’re not eating differently and you’re keeping active, but your waistline is expanding. How is that happening? Since eating healthy and exercising shouldn’t make you gain weight, there may be a hidden factor getting in your way. Stress. The one thing that can have a grip on your circadian rhythm stronger than any bodybuilder.

Francesca Bellini/iStock/Getty Images

Investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine published two mouse studies that suggest stress and other factors that throw the body’s circadian clocks out of rhythm may contribute to weight gain.

In the first study, the researchers imitated disruptive condition effects like high cortisol exposure and chronic stress by implanting pellets under the skin that released glucocorticoid at a constant rate for 21 days. Mice that received the pellets had twice as much white and brown fat, as well as much higher insulin levels, regardless of their unchanged and still-healthy diet.

In the second study, they used tagged proteins as markers to monitor the daily fluctuations of a protein that regulates fat cell production and circadian gene expression in mouse fat cell precursors. The results showed “that fat cell precursors commit to becoming fat cells only during the circadian cycle phase corresponding to evening in humans,” they said in a written statement.

“Every cell in our body has an intrinsic cell clock, just like the fat cells, and we have a master clock in our brain, which controls hormone secretion,” said senior author Mary Teruel of Cornell University. “A lot of forces are working against a healthy metabolism when we are out of circadian rhythm. The more we understand, the more likely we will be able to do something about it.”

So if you’re stressing out that the scale is or isn’t moving in the direction you want, you could be standing in your own way. Take a chill pill.
 

Who can smell cancer? The locust nose

If you need to smell some gas, there’s nothing better than a nose. Just ask a scientist: “Noses are still state of the art,” said Debajit Saha, PhD, of Michigan State University. “There’s really nothing like them when it comes to gas sensing.”

Derrick L. Turner

And when it comes to noses, dogs are best, right? After all, there’s a reason we don’t have bomb-sniffing wombats and drug-sniffing ostriches. Dogs are better. Better, but not perfect. And if they’re not perfect, then human technology can do better.

Enter the electronic nose. Which is better than dogs … except that it isn’t. “People have been working on ‘electronic noses’ for more than 15 years, but they’re still not close to achieving what biology can do seamlessly,” Dr. Saha explained in a statement from the university.

Which brings us back to dogs. If you want to detect early-stage cancer using smell, you go to the dogs, right? Nope.

Here’s Christopher Contag, PhD, also of Michigan State, who recruited Dr. Saha to the university: “I told him, ‘When you come here, we’ll detect cancer. I’m sure your locusts can do it.’ ”

Yes, locusts. Dr. Contag and his research team were looking at mouth cancers and noticed that different cell lines had different appearances. Then they discovered that those different-looking cell lines produced different metabolites, some of which were volatile.

Enter Dr. Saha’s locusts. They were able to tell the difference between normal cells and cancer cells and could even distinguish between the different cell lines. And how they were able to share this information? Not voluntarily, that’s for sure. The researchers attached electrodes to the insects’ brains and recorded their responses to gas samples from both healthy and cancer cells. Those brain signals were then used to create chemical profiles of the different cells. Piece of cake.

The whole getting-electrodes-attached-to-their-brains thing seemed at least a bit ethically ambiguous, so we contacted the locusts’ PR office, which offered some positive spin: “Humans get their early cancer detection and we get that whole swarms-that-devour-entire-countrysides thing off our backs. Win win.”
 

Bad news for vampires everywhere

Pop culture has been extraordinarily kind to the vampire. A few hundred years ago, vampires were demon-possessed, often-inhuman monsters. Now? They’re suave, sophisticated, beautiful, and oh-so dramatic and angst-filled about their “curse.” Drink a little human blood, live and look young forever. Such monsters they are.

eakkachaister/Thinkstock

It does make sense in a morbid sort of way. An old person receiving the blood of the young does seem like a good idea for rejuvenation, right? A team of Ukrainian researchers sought to find out, conducting a study in which older mice were linked with young mice via heterochronic parabiosis. For 3 months, old-young mice pairs were surgically connected and shared blood. After 3 months, the mice were disconnected from each other and the effects of the blood link were studied.

For all the vampire enthusiasts out there, we have bad news and worse news. The bad news first: The older mice received absolutely no benefit from heterochronic parabiosis. No youthfulness, no increased lifespan, nothing. The worse news is that the younger mice were adversely affected by the older blood. They aged more and experienced a shortened lifespan, even after the connection was severed. The old blood, according to the investigators, contains factors capable of inducing aging in younger mice, but the opposite is not true. Further research into aging, they added, should focus on suppressing the aging factors in older blood.

Of note, the paper was written by doctors who are currently refugees, fleeing the war in Ukraine. We don’t want to speculate on the true cause of the war, but we’re onto you, Putin. We know you wanted the vampire research for yourself, but it won’t work. Your dream of becoming Vlad “Dracula” Putin will never come to pass.
 

Hearing is not always believing

Have you ever heard yourself on a voice mail, or from a recording you did at work? No matter how good you sound, you still might feel like the recording sounds nothing like you. It may even cause low self-esteem for those who don’t like how their voice sounds or don’t recognize it when it’s played back to them.

Hiroshi Imamizu, University of Tokyo

Since one possible symptom of schizophrenia is not recognizing one’s own speech and having a false sense of control over actions, and those with schizophrenia may hallucinate or hear voices, not being able to recognize their own voices may be alarming.

A recent study on the sense of agency, or sense of control, involved having volunteers speak with different pitches in their voices and then having it played back to them to gauge their reactions.

“Our results demonstrate that hearing one’s own voice is a critical factor to increased self-agency over speech. In other words, we do not strongly feel that ‘I’ am generating the speech if we hear someone else’s voice as an outcome of the speech. Our study provides empirical evidence of the tight link between the sense of agency and self-voice identity,” lead author Ryu Ohata, PhD, of the University of Tokyo, said in a written statement.

As social interaction becomes more digital through platforms such as FaceTime, Zoom, and voicemail, especially since the pandemic has promoted social distancing, it makes sense that people may be more aware and more surprised by how they sound on recordings.

So, if you ever promised someone something that you don’t want to do, and they play it back to you from the recording you made, maybe you can just say you don’t recognize the voice. And if it’s not you, then you don’t have to do it.
 

Stress, meet weight gain. Weight gain, meet stress

You’re not eating differently and you’re keeping active, but your waistline is expanding. How is that happening? Since eating healthy and exercising shouldn’t make you gain weight, there may be a hidden factor getting in your way. Stress. The one thing that can have a grip on your circadian rhythm stronger than any bodybuilder.

Francesca Bellini/iStock/Getty Images

Investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine published two mouse studies that suggest stress and other factors that throw the body’s circadian clocks out of rhythm may contribute to weight gain.

In the first study, the researchers imitated disruptive condition effects like high cortisol exposure and chronic stress by implanting pellets under the skin that released glucocorticoid at a constant rate for 21 days. Mice that received the pellets had twice as much white and brown fat, as well as much higher insulin levels, regardless of their unchanged and still-healthy diet.

In the second study, they used tagged proteins as markers to monitor the daily fluctuations of a protein that regulates fat cell production and circadian gene expression in mouse fat cell precursors. The results showed “that fat cell precursors commit to becoming fat cells only during the circadian cycle phase corresponding to evening in humans,” they said in a written statement.

“Every cell in our body has an intrinsic cell clock, just like the fat cells, and we have a master clock in our brain, which controls hormone secretion,” said senior author Mary Teruel of Cornell University. “A lot of forces are working against a healthy metabolism when we are out of circadian rhythm. The more we understand, the more likely we will be able to do something about it.”

So if you’re stressing out that the scale is or isn’t moving in the direction you want, you could be standing in your own way. Take a chill pill.
 

Who can smell cancer? The locust nose

If you need to smell some gas, there’s nothing better than a nose. Just ask a scientist: “Noses are still state of the art,” said Debajit Saha, PhD, of Michigan State University. “There’s really nothing like them when it comes to gas sensing.”

Derrick L. Turner

And when it comes to noses, dogs are best, right? After all, there’s a reason we don’t have bomb-sniffing wombats and drug-sniffing ostriches. Dogs are better. Better, but not perfect. And if they’re not perfect, then human technology can do better.

Enter the electronic nose. Which is better than dogs … except that it isn’t. “People have been working on ‘electronic noses’ for more than 15 years, but they’re still not close to achieving what biology can do seamlessly,” Dr. Saha explained in a statement from the university.

Which brings us back to dogs. If you want to detect early-stage cancer using smell, you go to the dogs, right? Nope.

Here’s Christopher Contag, PhD, also of Michigan State, who recruited Dr. Saha to the university: “I told him, ‘When you come here, we’ll detect cancer. I’m sure your locusts can do it.’ ”

Yes, locusts. Dr. Contag and his research team were looking at mouth cancers and noticed that different cell lines had different appearances. Then they discovered that those different-looking cell lines produced different metabolites, some of which were volatile.

Enter Dr. Saha’s locusts. They were able to tell the difference between normal cells and cancer cells and could even distinguish between the different cell lines. And how they were able to share this information? Not voluntarily, that’s for sure. The researchers attached electrodes to the insects’ brains and recorded their responses to gas samples from both healthy and cancer cells. Those brain signals were then used to create chemical profiles of the different cells. Piece of cake.

The whole getting-electrodes-attached-to-their-brains thing seemed at least a bit ethically ambiguous, so we contacted the locusts’ PR office, which offered some positive spin: “Humans get their early cancer detection and we get that whole swarms-that-devour-entire-countrysides thing off our backs. Win win.”
 

Bad news for vampires everywhere

Pop culture has been extraordinarily kind to the vampire. A few hundred years ago, vampires were demon-possessed, often-inhuman monsters. Now? They’re suave, sophisticated, beautiful, and oh-so dramatic and angst-filled about their “curse.” Drink a little human blood, live and look young forever. Such monsters they are.

eakkachaister/Thinkstock

It does make sense in a morbid sort of way. An old person receiving the blood of the young does seem like a good idea for rejuvenation, right? A team of Ukrainian researchers sought to find out, conducting a study in which older mice were linked with young mice via heterochronic parabiosis. For 3 months, old-young mice pairs were surgically connected and shared blood. After 3 months, the mice were disconnected from each other and the effects of the blood link were studied.

For all the vampire enthusiasts out there, we have bad news and worse news. The bad news first: The older mice received absolutely no benefit from heterochronic parabiosis. No youthfulness, no increased lifespan, nothing. The worse news is that the younger mice were adversely affected by the older blood. They aged more and experienced a shortened lifespan, even after the connection was severed. The old blood, according to the investigators, contains factors capable of inducing aging in younger mice, but the opposite is not true. Further research into aging, they added, should focus on suppressing the aging factors in older blood.

Of note, the paper was written by doctors who are currently refugees, fleeing the war in Ukraine. We don’t want to speculate on the true cause of the war, but we’re onto you, Putin. We know you wanted the vampire research for yourself, but it won’t work. Your dream of becoming Vlad “Dracula” Putin will never come to pass.
 

Hearing is not always believing

Have you ever heard yourself on a voice mail, or from a recording you did at work? No matter how good you sound, you still might feel like the recording sounds nothing like you. It may even cause low self-esteem for those who don’t like how their voice sounds or don’t recognize it when it’s played back to them.

Hiroshi Imamizu, University of Tokyo

Since one possible symptom of schizophrenia is not recognizing one’s own speech and having a false sense of control over actions, and those with schizophrenia may hallucinate or hear voices, not being able to recognize their own voices may be alarming.

A recent study on the sense of agency, or sense of control, involved having volunteers speak with different pitches in their voices and then having it played back to them to gauge their reactions.

“Our results demonstrate that hearing one’s own voice is a critical factor to increased self-agency over speech. In other words, we do not strongly feel that ‘I’ am generating the speech if we hear someone else’s voice as an outcome of the speech. Our study provides empirical evidence of the tight link between the sense of agency and self-voice identity,” lead author Ryu Ohata, PhD, of the University of Tokyo, said in a written statement.

As social interaction becomes more digital through platforms such as FaceTime, Zoom, and voicemail, especially since the pandemic has promoted social distancing, it makes sense that people may be more aware and more surprised by how they sound on recordings.

So, if you ever promised someone something that you don’t want to do, and they play it back to you from the recording you made, maybe you can just say you don’t recognize the voice. And if it’s not you, then you don’t have to do it.
 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

Discontinuing antithyroid drugs during early pregnancy is linked to a possible rebound of hyperthyroidism and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, new research shows.

“Our study provides preliminary evidence that the risk of rebound increases in women with subnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and/or positive thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) who stop antithyroid drugs in early pregnancy,” first author Xin Hou told this news organization.

“When discussing the pros and cons of antithyroid drug withdrawal early in pregnancy [clinicians] should consider the level of TSH and TRAb in early pregnancy,” said Hou, of the department of endocrinology and metabolism, Institute of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang.

Suvi Turunen, MD, of the University of Oulu (Finland), who has also conducted research on the issue, said the study adds important insights.

“I find this study very interesting,” Dr. Turunen said in an interview. “It is well known that medical treatment of hyperthyroidism outweighs the potential harms of antithyroid treatment.”

The new findings add to the evidence, she added. “I think that withdrawal of antithyroid drugs should be carefully considered, especially with autoantibody-positive patients,” Dr. Turunen said.
 

Hyperthyroidism a risk in pregnancy – with or without treatment

The potential risks of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy are well established and can range from preeclampsia to premature birth or miscarriage.

However, antithyroid drugs, including methimazole and propylthiouracil, carry their own risks. In crossing the placental barrier, the drugs can increase the risk of birth defects, particularly during 6-10 weeks of gestation, yet their discontinuation is linked to as much as a 50%-60% risk of relapse, the authors explain.

Because of the risks, the American Thyroid Association recommends that “women with a stable euthyroid state on 5-10 mg methimazole per day achieved within a few months, and a falling TRAb level, are likely candidates to withdraw from antithyroid drug therapy in early pregnancy,” the authors noted.

However, as the recommendations for women who are already pregnant are largely based on evidence from nonpregnant patients, Hou and colleagues sought to evaluate withdrawal among women who were pregnant.

For the study, published in Thyroid, they enrolled 63 women who were pregnant and part of an outpatient service of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, between September 2014 and March 2017, who had well-controlled hyperthyroidism in early pregnancy and discontinued the drugs.

The women were an average age of 27 years, and 28 were multigravida. Twenty-two had a history of miscarriage.

A follow-up of the patients until the end of their pregnancy showed that, overall, 20 (31.7%) had a rebound of hyperthyroidism during their pregnancy after withdrawing from the drugs.

Key factors associated with the highest risk of a rebound after discontinuation included having subnormal TSH levels (TSH < 0.35 mIU/L; odds ratio, 5.12; P  = .03) or having positive TRAb (TRAb > 1.75 IU/L; OR, 3.79; P = .02) at the time of medication withdrawal, compared with those with either normal TSH levels or negative TRAb.

The combination of both subnormal TSH and positive TRAb at the time of antithyroid medication withdrawal further boosted the risk of hyperthyroidism rebound (83.3%, 5 of 6), compared with those who had both normal TSH and negative TRAb (13%, 3 of 23; OR, 33.33; P = .003).

Adverse pregnancy outcomes increased

Importantly, among the 20 patients who had a rebound, 11 (55%) had adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature birth, induced labor, gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, compared with only 4 (9.3%) of the 43 who had no rebound (OR, 11.92; P = .0002).

Neonatal abnormalities were also higher among those experiencing a rebound (20% vs. 4.7%), however, the authors noted that “larger prospective studies are required to conclude whether antithyroid drug withdrawal affects fetal outcome.”

In the rebound group, the mean duration of antithyroid medication use was 24.7 months versus 35.1 months in the nonrebound group, however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07). And 40% of the rebound group had a history of miscarriage versus 32.6% in the non-rebound group, but was also not significantly different (P = .56).

The authors noted that half of those in the rebound group developed hyperthyroidism more than 4 weeks after their withdrawal from antithyroid medications, “which seemed to have circumvented the most sensitive period of teratogenesis between 6 and 10 weeks of pregnancy.”

Hou added that restarting antithyroid medication did not increase the risk of adverse outcomes for offspring.

“A low dose of antithyroid medications may be a good choice for women with subnormal TSH and/or positive TRAb in early pregnancy,” Hou concluded. “Because of the small size of our study, a larger prospective study is needed to overcome the potential selection bias and to verify the conclusions.”
 

Findings consistent with Finnish study

In her own recent study, which included 2,144 women in Finland who experienced hyperthyroidism during pregnancy, Dr. Turunen and colleagues found that having hyperthyroidism, with or without antithyroid drug treatment, was associated with an increased odds of pregnancy and/or prenatal complications, compared with those without thyroid disease.

“In our study, we observed an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes also in mothers with previous diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperthyroidism, not only with overt hyperthyroidism treated with antithyroid drugs,” she told this news organization.

“I think that especially those patients with positive antibodies [TRAbs] are at risk even if they are euthyroid,” she noted. “Withdrawal of antithyroid drugs in these patients is a risk.”

“Probably continuing antithyroid treatment with low dose is a better option,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Turunen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Discontinuing antithyroid drugs during early pregnancy is linked to a possible rebound of hyperthyroidism and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, new research shows.

“Our study provides preliminary evidence that the risk of rebound increases in women with subnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and/or positive thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) who stop antithyroid drugs in early pregnancy,” first author Xin Hou told this news organization.

“When discussing the pros and cons of antithyroid drug withdrawal early in pregnancy [clinicians] should consider the level of TSH and TRAb in early pregnancy,” said Hou, of the department of endocrinology and metabolism, Institute of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang.

Suvi Turunen, MD, of the University of Oulu (Finland), who has also conducted research on the issue, said the study adds important insights.

“I find this study very interesting,” Dr. Turunen said in an interview. “It is well known that medical treatment of hyperthyroidism outweighs the potential harms of antithyroid treatment.”

The new findings add to the evidence, she added. “I think that withdrawal of antithyroid drugs should be carefully considered, especially with autoantibody-positive patients,” Dr. Turunen said.
 

Hyperthyroidism a risk in pregnancy – with or without treatment

The potential risks of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy are well established and can range from preeclampsia to premature birth or miscarriage.

However, antithyroid drugs, including methimazole and propylthiouracil, carry their own risks. In crossing the placental barrier, the drugs can increase the risk of birth defects, particularly during 6-10 weeks of gestation, yet their discontinuation is linked to as much as a 50%-60% risk of relapse, the authors explain.

Because of the risks, the American Thyroid Association recommends that “women with a stable euthyroid state on 5-10 mg methimazole per day achieved within a few months, and a falling TRAb level, are likely candidates to withdraw from antithyroid drug therapy in early pregnancy,” the authors noted.

However, as the recommendations for women who are already pregnant are largely based on evidence from nonpregnant patients, Hou and colleagues sought to evaluate withdrawal among women who were pregnant.

For the study, published in Thyroid, they enrolled 63 women who were pregnant and part of an outpatient service of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, between September 2014 and March 2017, who had well-controlled hyperthyroidism in early pregnancy and discontinued the drugs.

The women were an average age of 27 years, and 28 were multigravida. Twenty-two had a history of miscarriage.

A follow-up of the patients until the end of their pregnancy showed that, overall, 20 (31.7%) had a rebound of hyperthyroidism during their pregnancy after withdrawing from the drugs.

Key factors associated with the highest risk of a rebound after discontinuation included having subnormal TSH levels (TSH < 0.35 mIU/L; odds ratio, 5.12; P  = .03) or having positive TRAb (TRAb > 1.75 IU/L; OR, 3.79; P = .02) at the time of medication withdrawal, compared with those with either normal TSH levels or negative TRAb.

The combination of both subnormal TSH and positive TRAb at the time of antithyroid medication withdrawal further boosted the risk of hyperthyroidism rebound (83.3%, 5 of 6), compared with those who had both normal TSH and negative TRAb (13%, 3 of 23; OR, 33.33; P = .003).

Adverse pregnancy outcomes increased

Importantly, among the 20 patients who had a rebound, 11 (55%) had adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature birth, induced labor, gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, compared with only 4 (9.3%) of the 43 who had no rebound (OR, 11.92; P = .0002).

Neonatal abnormalities were also higher among those experiencing a rebound (20% vs. 4.7%), however, the authors noted that “larger prospective studies are required to conclude whether antithyroid drug withdrawal affects fetal outcome.”

In the rebound group, the mean duration of antithyroid medication use was 24.7 months versus 35.1 months in the nonrebound group, however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07). And 40% of the rebound group had a history of miscarriage versus 32.6% in the non-rebound group, but was also not significantly different (P = .56).

The authors noted that half of those in the rebound group developed hyperthyroidism more than 4 weeks after their withdrawal from antithyroid medications, “which seemed to have circumvented the most sensitive period of teratogenesis between 6 and 10 weeks of pregnancy.”

Hou added that restarting antithyroid medication did not increase the risk of adverse outcomes for offspring.

“A low dose of antithyroid medications may be a good choice for women with subnormal TSH and/or positive TRAb in early pregnancy,” Hou concluded. “Because of the small size of our study, a larger prospective study is needed to overcome the potential selection bias and to verify the conclusions.”
 

Findings consistent with Finnish study

In her own recent study, which included 2,144 women in Finland who experienced hyperthyroidism during pregnancy, Dr. Turunen and colleagues found that having hyperthyroidism, with or without antithyroid drug treatment, was associated with an increased odds of pregnancy and/or prenatal complications, compared with those without thyroid disease.

“In our study, we observed an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes also in mothers with previous diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperthyroidism, not only with overt hyperthyroidism treated with antithyroid drugs,” she told this news organization.

“I think that especially those patients with positive antibodies [TRAbs] are at risk even if they are euthyroid,” she noted. “Withdrawal of antithyroid drugs in these patients is a risk.”

“Probably continuing antithyroid treatment with low dose is a better option,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Turunen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Discontinuing antithyroid drugs during early pregnancy is linked to a possible rebound of hyperthyroidism and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, new research shows.

“Our study provides preliminary evidence that the risk of rebound increases in women with subnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and/or positive thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) who stop antithyroid drugs in early pregnancy,” first author Xin Hou told this news organization.

“When discussing the pros and cons of antithyroid drug withdrawal early in pregnancy [clinicians] should consider the level of TSH and TRAb in early pregnancy,” said Hou, of the department of endocrinology and metabolism, Institute of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang.

Suvi Turunen, MD, of the University of Oulu (Finland), who has also conducted research on the issue, said the study adds important insights.

“I find this study very interesting,” Dr. Turunen said in an interview. “It is well known that medical treatment of hyperthyroidism outweighs the potential harms of antithyroid treatment.”

The new findings add to the evidence, she added. “I think that withdrawal of antithyroid drugs should be carefully considered, especially with autoantibody-positive patients,” Dr. Turunen said.
 

Hyperthyroidism a risk in pregnancy – with or without treatment

The potential risks of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy are well established and can range from preeclampsia to premature birth or miscarriage.

However, antithyroid drugs, including methimazole and propylthiouracil, carry their own risks. In crossing the placental barrier, the drugs can increase the risk of birth defects, particularly during 6-10 weeks of gestation, yet their discontinuation is linked to as much as a 50%-60% risk of relapse, the authors explain.

Because of the risks, the American Thyroid Association recommends that “women with a stable euthyroid state on 5-10 mg methimazole per day achieved within a few months, and a falling TRAb level, are likely candidates to withdraw from antithyroid drug therapy in early pregnancy,” the authors noted.

However, as the recommendations for women who are already pregnant are largely based on evidence from nonpregnant patients, Hou and colleagues sought to evaluate withdrawal among women who were pregnant.

For the study, published in Thyroid, they enrolled 63 women who were pregnant and part of an outpatient service of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, between September 2014 and March 2017, who had well-controlled hyperthyroidism in early pregnancy and discontinued the drugs.

The women were an average age of 27 years, and 28 were multigravida. Twenty-two had a history of miscarriage.

A follow-up of the patients until the end of their pregnancy showed that, overall, 20 (31.7%) had a rebound of hyperthyroidism during their pregnancy after withdrawing from the drugs.

Key factors associated with the highest risk of a rebound after discontinuation included having subnormal TSH levels (TSH < 0.35 mIU/L; odds ratio, 5.12; P  = .03) or having positive TRAb (TRAb > 1.75 IU/L; OR, 3.79; P = .02) at the time of medication withdrawal, compared with those with either normal TSH levels or negative TRAb.

The combination of both subnormal TSH and positive TRAb at the time of antithyroid medication withdrawal further boosted the risk of hyperthyroidism rebound (83.3%, 5 of 6), compared with those who had both normal TSH and negative TRAb (13%, 3 of 23; OR, 33.33; P = .003).

Adverse pregnancy outcomes increased

Importantly, among the 20 patients who had a rebound, 11 (55%) had adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature birth, induced labor, gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, compared with only 4 (9.3%) of the 43 who had no rebound (OR, 11.92; P = .0002).

Neonatal abnormalities were also higher among those experiencing a rebound (20% vs. 4.7%), however, the authors noted that “larger prospective studies are required to conclude whether antithyroid drug withdrawal affects fetal outcome.”

In the rebound group, the mean duration of antithyroid medication use was 24.7 months versus 35.1 months in the nonrebound group, however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07). And 40% of the rebound group had a history of miscarriage versus 32.6% in the non-rebound group, but was also not significantly different (P = .56).

The authors noted that half of those in the rebound group developed hyperthyroidism more than 4 weeks after their withdrawal from antithyroid medications, “which seemed to have circumvented the most sensitive period of teratogenesis between 6 and 10 weeks of pregnancy.”

Hou added that restarting antithyroid medication did not increase the risk of adverse outcomes for offspring.

“A low dose of antithyroid medications may be a good choice for women with subnormal TSH and/or positive TRAb in early pregnancy,” Hou concluded. “Because of the small size of our study, a larger prospective study is needed to overcome the potential selection bias and to verify the conclusions.”
 

Findings consistent with Finnish study

In her own recent study, which included 2,144 women in Finland who experienced hyperthyroidism during pregnancy, Dr. Turunen and colleagues found that having hyperthyroidism, with or without antithyroid drug treatment, was associated with an increased odds of pregnancy and/or prenatal complications, compared with those without thyroid disease.

“In our study, we observed an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes also in mothers with previous diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperthyroidism, not only with overt hyperthyroidism treated with antithyroid drugs,” she told this news organization.

“I think that especially those patients with positive antibodies [TRAbs] are at risk even if they are euthyroid,” she noted. “Withdrawal of antithyroid drugs in these patients is a risk.”

“Probably continuing antithyroid treatment with low dose is a better option,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Turunen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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