Federal Practitioner

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

A few weeks ago, right after 19 children and two adults were killed by a gunman in Uvalde, Texas, Americans were really on edge. Many people I know became hypervigilant while going about activities previously thought of as routine, such as waiting for a subway or going to a grocery store.

On top of that, we are still facing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Despite vaccines and therapeutics, the United States is still losing more than 300 people each day to the virus. Many people who have tested positive have continued to experience debilitating long-haul symptoms many months after testing negative, and I believe not knowing what your future life will bring from this terrible illness could lead some to posttraumatic stress disorder.

In addition to constant updates about COVID, we are getting almost daily reports about monkeypox. In New York state, medical professionals and institutions receive regular, almost weekly, information about the spread of influenza. But where are the reports and treatment approaches for PTSD, which would not only increase awareness but also lead to more care?

Some might believe that I am obsessed with PTSD, since I’ve written a great deal on the subject, particularly “underdiagnosed” PTSD. The key question I have is: How can clinicians treating patients NOT consider that we are amid an epidemic of PTSD, including a delayed-onset form of the illness?

We know the signs and symptoms of PTSD. They include flashbacks, intrusive recollections, physical distress related to stimuli related to the trauma, insomnia, social isolation, avoidance of certain situations, negative thinking, and hyperarousal – coupled with anxiety and depression. PTSD can be a great masquerader. It can be triggered by many events, large and small, and all too often will masquerade as general anxiety or existential despair and depression. Too often, PTSD is undiagnosed or unrecognized completely. PTSD is also a costly disease that is an enormous economic burden on the U.S. economy.

As clinicians, we must be aware of the more subtle events that may trigger PTSD. We must think beyond ICD codes and DSM criteria and realize that each individual processes an event or a series of events differently. For example, seriously ill people in ICUs or undergoing critical care have been known to experience PTSD well beyond their physical recovery (J Crit Care. 2017 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.06.014). Years after the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center disaster, many are still suffering from PTSD symptoms (Biol Psychiatry. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.02.817).

Again, in some cases, not knowing what the future may bring regarding life itself can lead to PTSD. I have treated patients who have lost jobs and experienced devastating social and financial losses, which were perceived as a separation from “life as they know it.” These can be precursors to PTSD for some who are sensitive to the disorder.

Intergenerational trauma is also a real phenomenon to which we must be attuned. I have treated two adult children of Holocaust survivors, both born in America well after World War II, who developed PTSD after hearing family recollections over and over about the brutality suffered by relatives, combined with watching films about people sent to concentration camps. Both of those patients self-diagnosed their symptoms as depression. Research shows that Holocaust traumatization can affect three generations (J Anxiety Disord. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102401).

In light of the high incidence of traumatic events affecting millions directly, more codified treatment approaches are needed that can be used both for individuals and for those in group settings.

To date, the best treatment rests with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and guided imagery coupled with relaxation techniques and the various types of in vivo exposure therapy, which I prefer to in vitro or flooding care. In terms of medication management, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved only two antidepressant medications for PTSD, sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil), although other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been used off- label, and prazosin, a hypertensive medication, has been used off-label for PTSD-related insomnia and nightmares (Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2012 Mar 22. doi: 10.4088/PCC.11r01222). Thus, the limited number of choices for medication management means more research is needed so that more medications are developed that are more precisely directed at PTSD treatment.
 

Implications for society at large

In a recent article published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2022 Apr 25. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14116), authors Lori L. Davis and colleagues point out that the economic burden of PTSD goes beyond health care costs and rivals the costs of other mental illnesses, including depression and anxiety. In the process, Dr. Davis and colleagues note, unemployment caused by job loss, disability, homelessness, substance use, disordered care, as well as premature mortality, all contribute to this severe burden, going beyond PTSD itself.

This study shows that the annual economic burden of PTSD is $232 billion. Most of that burden is attributed to the civilian population, which they suggest to be $189.5 billion, or 82%.

After reading that article, it became clear to me that my “obsession” with PTSD is not really an obsession at all. Rather, it is a true concern that, against the backdrop of long COVID, gun violence, political and economic turmoil, and other factors, it is important that clinicians understand how to recognize and treat PTSD. The stakes have never been higher.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

A few weeks ago, right after 19 children and two adults were killed by a gunman in Uvalde, Texas, Americans were really on edge. Many people I know became hypervigilant while going about activities previously thought of as routine, such as waiting for a subway or going to a grocery store.

On top of that, we are still facing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Despite vaccines and therapeutics, the United States is still losing more than 300 people each day to the virus. Many people who have tested positive have continued to experience debilitating long-haul symptoms many months after testing negative, and I believe not knowing what your future life will bring from this terrible illness could lead some to posttraumatic stress disorder.

In addition to constant updates about COVID, we are getting almost daily reports about monkeypox. In New York state, medical professionals and institutions receive regular, almost weekly, information about the spread of influenza. But where are the reports and treatment approaches for PTSD, which would not only increase awareness but also lead to more care?

Some might believe that I am obsessed with PTSD, since I’ve written a great deal on the subject, particularly “underdiagnosed” PTSD. The key question I have is: How can clinicians treating patients NOT consider that we are amid an epidemic of PTSD, including a delayed-onset form of the illness?

We know the signs and symptoms of PTSD. They include flashbacks, intrusive recollections, physical distress related to stimuli related to the trauma, insomnia, social isolation, avoidance of certain situations, negative thinking, and hyperarousal – coupled with anxiety and depression. PTSD can be a great masquerader. It can be triggered by many events, large and small, and all too often will masquerade as general anxiety or existential despair and depression. Too often, PTSD is undiagnosed or unrecognized completely. PTSD is also a costly disease that is an enormous economic burden on the U.S. economy.

As clinicians, we must be aware of the more subtle events that may trigger PTSD. We must think beyond ICD codes and DSM criteria and realize that each individual processes an event or a series of events differently. For example, seriously ill people in ICUs or undergoing critical care have been known to experience PTSD well beyond their physical recovery (J Crit Care. 2017 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.06.014). Years after the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center disaster, many are still suffering from PTSD symptoms (Biol Psychiatry. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.02.817).

Again, in some cases, not knowing what the future may bring regarding life itself can lead to PTSD. I have treated patients who have lost jobs and experienced devastating social and financial losses, which were perceived as a separation from “life as they know it.” These can be precursors to PTSD for some who are sensitive to the disorder.

Intergenerational trauma is also a real phenomenon to which we must be attuned. I have treated two adult children of Holocaust survivors, both born in America well after World War II, who developed PTSD after hearing family recollections over and over about the brutality suffered by relatives, combined with watching films about people sent to concentration camps. Both of those patients self-diagnosed their symptoms as depression. Research shows that Holocaust traumatization can affect three generations (J Anxiety Disord. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102401).

In light of the high incidence of traumatic events affecting millions directly, more codified treatment approaches are needed that can be used both for individuals and for those in group settings.

To date, the best treatment rests with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and guided imagery coupled with relaxation techniques and the various types of in vivo exposure therapy, which I prefer to in vitro or flooding care. In terms of medication management, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved only two antidepressant medications for PTSD, sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil), although other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been used off- label, and prazosin, a hypertensive medication, has been used off-label for PTSD-related insomnia and nightmares (Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2012 Mar 22. doi: 10.4088/PCC.11r01222). Thus, the limited number of choices for medication management means more research is needed so that more medications are developed that are more precisely directed at PTSD treatment.
 

Implications for society at large

In a recent article published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2022 Apr 25. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14116), authors Lori L. Davis and colleagues point out that the economic burden of PTSD goes beyond health care costs and rivals the costs of other mental illnesses, including depression and anxiety. In the process, Dr. Davis and colleagues note, unemployment caused by job loss, disability, homelessness, substance use, disordered care, as well as premature mortality, all contribute to this severe burden, going beyond PTSD itself.

This study shows that the annual economic burden of PTSD is $232 billion. Most of that burden is attributed to the civilian population, which they suggest to be $189.5 billion, or 82%.

After reading that article, it became clear to me that my “obsession” with PTSD is not really an obsession at all. Rather, it is a true concern that, against the backdrop of long COVID, gun violence, political and economic turmoil, and other factors, it is important that clinicians understand how to recognize and treat PTSD. The stakes have never been higher.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

A few weeks ago, right after 19 children and two adults were killed by a gunman in Uvalde, Texas, Americans were really on edge. Many people I know became hypervigilant while going about activities previously thought of as routine, such as waiting for a subway or going to a grocery store.

On top of that, we are still facing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Despite vaccines and therapeutics, the United States is still losing more than 300 people each day to the virus. Many people who have tested positive have continued to experience debilitating long-haul symptoms many months after testing negative, and I believe not knowing what your future life will bring from this terrible illness could lead some to posttraumatic stress disorder.

In addition to constant updates about COVID, we are getting almost daily reports about monkeypox. In New York state, medical professionals and institutions receive regular, almost weekly, information about the spread of influenza. But where are the reports and treatment approaches for PTSD, which would not only increase awareness but also lead to more care?

Some might believe that I am obsessed with PTSD, since I’ve written a great deal on the subject, particularly “underdiagnosed” PTSD. The key question I have is: How can clinicians treating patients NOT consider that we are amid an epidemic of PTSD, including a delayed-onset form of the illness?

We know the signs and symptoms of PTSD. They include flashbacks, intrusive recollections, physical distress related to stimuli related to the trauma, insomnia, social isolation, avoidance of certain situations, negative thinking, and hyperarousal – coupled with anxiety and depression. PTSD can be a great masquerader. It can be triggered by many events, large and small, and all too often will masquerade as general anxiety or existential despair and depression. Too often, PTSD is undiagnosed or unrecognized completely. PTSD is also a costly disease that is an enormous economic burden on the U.S. economy.

As clinicians, we must be aware of the more subtle events that may trigger PTSD. We must think beyond ICD codes and DSM criteria and realize that each individual processes an event or a series of events differently. For example, seriously ill people in ICUs or undergoing critical care have been known to experience PTSD well beyond their physical recovery (J Crit Care. 2017 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.06.014). Years after the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center disaster, many are still suffering from PTSD symptoms (Biol Psychiatry. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.02.817).

Again, in some cases, not knowing what the future may bring regarding life itself can lead to PTSD. I have treated patients who have lost jobs and experienced devastating social and financial losses, which were perceived as a separation from “life as they know it.” These can be precursors to PTSD for some who are sensitive to the disorder.

Intergenerational trauma is also a real phenomenon to which we must be attuned. I have treated two adult children of Holocaust survivors, both born in America well after World War II, who developed PTSD after hearing family recollections over and over about the brutality suffered by relatives, combined with watching films about people sent to concentration camps. Both of those patients self-diagnosed their symptoms as depression. Research shows that Holocaust traumatization can affect three generations (J Anxiety Disord. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102401).

In light of the high incidence of traumatic events affecting millions directly, more codified treatment approaches are needed that can be used both for individuals and for those in group settings.

To date, the best treatment rests with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and guided imagery coupled with relaxation techniques and the various types of in vivo exposure therapy, which I prefer to in vitro or flooding care. In terms of medication management, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved only two antidepressant medications for PTSD, sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil), although other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been used off- label, and prazosin, a hypertensive medication, has been used off-label for PTSD-related insomnia and nightmares (Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2012 Mar 22. doi: 10.4088/PCC.11r01222). Thus, the limited number of choices for medication management means more research is needed so that more medications are developed that are more precisely directed at PTSD treatment.
 

Implications for society at large

In a recent article published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2022 Apr 25. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14116), authors Lori L. Davis and colleagues point out that the economic burden of PTSD goes beyond health care costs and rivals the costs of other mental illnesses, including depression and anxiety. In the process, Dr. Davis and colleagues note, unemployment caused by job loss, disability, homelessness, substance use, disordered care, as well as premature mortality, all contribute to this severe burden, going beyond PTSD itself.

This study shows that the annual economic burden of PTSD is $232 billion. Most of that burden is attributed to the civilian population, which they suggest to be $189.5 billion, or 82%.

After reading that article, it became clear to me that my “obsession” with PTSD is not really an obsession at all. Rather, it is a true concern that, against the backdrop of long COVID, gun violence, political and economic turmoil, and other factors, it is important that clinicians understand how to recognize and treat PTSD. The stakes have never been higher.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

Adding salt to food at the table was linked to a higher risk of premature death and a lower life expectancy, independent of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and pre-existing diseases, in a new study.

In the study of more than 500,000 people, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, those who always added salt to their food had a 28% increased risk of dying prematurely (defined as death before the age of 75 years).

Results also showed that adding salt to food was linked to a lower life expectancy. At the age of 50 years, life expectancy was reduced by 1.5 years in women and by 2.28 years in men who always added salt to their food, compared with those who never or rarely did.

However, these increased risks appeared to be attenuated with increasing intakes of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

The study was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“As far as we are aware, this is the first study to analyze adding salt to meals as a unique measurement for dietary sodium intake. Such a measure is less likely affected by other dietary components, especially potassium intake,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“Our study provides supportive evidence from a novel perspective to show the adverse effects of high sodium intake on human health, which is still a controversial topic. Our findings support the advice that reduction of salt intake by reducing the salt added to meals may benefit health and improve life expectancy. Our results also suggest that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are beneficial regarding lowering the adverse effects of salt,” he added.
 

Link between dietary salt and health is subject of longstanding debate

The researchers explained that the relationship between dietary salt intake and health remains a subject of longstanding debate, with previous studies on the association between sodium intake and mortality having shown conflicting results.

They attributed the inconsistent results to the low accuracy of sodium measurement, noting that sodium intake varies widely from day to day, but the majority of previous studies have largely relied on a single day’s urine collection or dietary survey for estimating the sodium intake, which is inadequate to assess an individual’s usual consumption levels.

They also pointed out that it is difficult to separate the contributions of intakes of sodium and potassium to health based on current methods for measuring dietary sodium and  potassium, and this may confound the association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

They noted that the hypothesis that a high-potassium intake may attenuate the adverse association of high-sodium intake with health outcomes has been proposed for many years, but studies assessing the interaction between sodium intake and potassium intake on the risk of mortality are scarce.

Adding salt to food at the table is a common eating behavior directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty tasting foods and habitual salt intake, the authors said, adding that commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors including potassium. “Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a unique assessment to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality.”
 

UK Biobank study

For the current study Dr. Qi and colleagues analyzed data from 501,379 people taking part in the UK Biobank study. When joining the study between 2006 and 2010, the participants were asked whether they added salt to their foods never/rarely, sometimes, usually or always. Participants were then followed for a median of 9 years.

After adjustment for sex, age, race, smoking, moderate drinking, body mass index, physical activity, Townsend deprivation index, high cholesterol, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, results showed an increasing risk of all-cause premature mortality rose with increasing frequency of adding salt to foods.

The adjusted hazard ratios, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.06) for those who added salt sometimes, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11) for those who usually added salt, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.35) for those who always added salt.

The researchers also estimated the lower survival time caused by the high frequency of adding salt to foods. At age 50, women who always added salt to foods had an average 1.50 fewer years of life expectancy, and men who always added salt had an average 2.28 fewer years of life expectancy, as compared with their counterparts who never/rarely added salt to foods.

For cause-specific premature mortality, results showed that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, but not for dementia mortality or respiratory mortality. For the subtypes of cardiovascular mortality, adding salt to foods was significantly associated with higher risk of stroke mortality but not coronary heart disease mortality.

Other analyses suggested that the association of adding salt to foods with an increased risk of premature mortality appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of food high in potassium (fruits and vegetables).

The authors point out that the amounts of discretionary sodium intake (the salt used at the table or in home cooking) have been largely overlooked in previous studies, even though adding salt to foods accounts for a considerable proportion of total sodium intake (6%-20%) in Western diets.

“Our findings also support the notion that even a modest reduction in sodium intake is likely to result in substantial health benefits, especially when it is achieved in the general population,” they conclude.
 

Conflicting information from different studies

But the current findings seem to directly contradict those from another recent study by Messerli and colleagues showing higher sodium intake correlates with improved life expectancy.

Addressing these contradictory results, Dr. Qi commented: “The study of Messerli et al. is based on an ecological design, in which the analysis is performed on country average sodium intake, rather than at the individual level. This type of ecological study has several major limitations, such as the lack of individuals’ sodium intake, uncontrolled confounding, and the cross-sectional nature. Typically, ecological studies are not considered useful for testing hypothesis in epidemiological studies.”

Dr. Qi noted that, in contrast, his current study analyzes individuals’ exposure, and has a prospective design. “Our findings are supported by previous large-scale observational studies and clinical trials which show the high intake of sodium may adversely affect chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” =

Lead author of the ecological study, Franz Messerli, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, however, was not convinced by the findings from Dr. Qi’s study.

“The difference in 24-hour sodium intake between those who never/rarely added salt and those who always did is a minuscule 0.17 g. It is highly unlikely that such negligible quantity has any impact on blood pressure, not to mention cardiovascular mortality or life expectancy,” he commented in an interview.

He also pointed out that, in Dr. Qi’s study, people who added salt more frequently also consumed more red meat and processed meat, as well as less fish and less fruit and vegetables. “I would suggest that the bad habit of adding salt at the table is simply a powerful marker for an unhealthy diet.”

“There is no question that an excessive salt intake is harmful in hypertensive patients and increases the risk of stroke. But 0.17 g is not going to make any difference,” Dr. Messerli added.
 

What is the optimum level?

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Qi and colleagues in the European Heart Journal, Annika Rosengren, MD, PhD, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, noted that guidelines recommend a salt intake below 5 g, or about a teaspoon, per day. But few individuals meet this recommendation.

Because several recent studies show a U- or J-shaped association between salt and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reducing salt intake across the whole population may not be universally beneficial, Dr. Rosengren said.

“So far, what the collective evidence about salt seems to indicate is that healthy people consuming what constitutes normal levels of ordinary salt need not worry too much about their salt intake,” she wrote.

Instead, she advised a diet rich in fruit and vegetables should be a priority to counterbalance potentially harmful effects of salt, and for many other reasons.

And she added that people at high risk, such as those with hypertension who have a high salt intake, are probably well advised to cut down, and not adding extra salt to already prepared foods is one way of achieving this. However, at the individual level, the optimal salt consumption range, or the “sweet spot” remains to be determined. 

“Not adding extra salt to food is unlikely to be harmful and could contribute to strategies to lower population blood pressure levels,” Dr. Rosengren concluded.

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

Adding salt to food at the table was linked to a higher risk of premature death and a lower life expectancy, independent of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and pre-existing diseases, in a new study.

In the study of more than 500,000 people, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, those who always added salt to their food had a 28% increased risk of dying prematurely (defined as death before the age of 75 years).

Results also showed that adding salt to food was linked to a lower life expectancy. At the age of 50 years, life expectancy was reduced by 1.5 years in women and by 2.28 years in men who always added salt to their food, compared with those who never or rarely did.

However, these increased risks appeared to be attenuated with increasing intakes of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

The study was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“As far as we are aware, this is the first study to analyze adding salt to meals as a unique measurement for dietary sodium intake. Such a measure is less likely affected by other dietary components, especially potassium intake,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“Our study provides supportive evidence from a novel perspective to show the adverse effects of high sodium intake on human health, which is still a controversial topic. Our findings support the advice that reduction of salt intake by reducing the salt added to meals may benefit health and improve life expectancy. Our results also suggest that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are beneficial regarding lowering the adverse effects of salt,” he added.
 

Link between dietary salt and health is subject of longstanding debate

The researchers explained that the relationship between dietary salt intake and health remains a subject of longstanding debate, with previous studies on the association between sodium intake and mortality having shown conflicting results.

They attributed the inconsistent results to the low accuracy of sodium measurement, noting that sodium intake varies widely from day to day, but the majority of previous studies have largely relied on a single day’s urine collection or dietary survey for estimating the sodium intake, which is inadequate to assess an individual’s usual consumption levels.

They also pointed out that it is difficult to separate the contributions of intakes of sodium and potassium to health based on current methods for measuring dietary sodium and  potassium, and this may confound the association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

They noted that the hypothesis that a high-potassium intake may attenuate the adverse association of high-sodium intake with health outcomes has been proposed for many years, but studies assessing the interaction between sodium intake and potassium intake on the risk of mortality are scarce.

Adding salt to food at the table is a common eating behavior directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty tasting foods and habitual salt intake, the authors said, adding that commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors including potassium. “Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a unique assessment to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality.”
 

UK Biobank study

For the current study Dr. Qi and colleagues analyzed data from 501,379 people taking part in the UK Biobank study. When joining the study between 2006 and 2010, the participants were asked whether they added salt to their foods never/rarely, sometimes, usually or always. Participants were then followed for a median of 9 years.

After adjustment for sex, age, race, smoking, moderate drinking, body mass index, physical activity, Townsend deprivation index, high cholesterol, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, results showed an increasing risk of all-cause premature mortality rose with increasing frequency of adding salt to foods.

The adjusted hazard ratios, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.06) for those who added salt sometimes, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11) for those who usually added salt, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.35) for those who always added salt.

The researchers also estimated the lower survival time caused by the high frequency of adding salt to foods. At age 50, women who always added salt to foods had an average 1.50 fewer years of life expectancy, and men who always added salt had an average 2.28 fewer years of life expectancy, as compared with their counterparts who never/rarely added salt to foods.

For cause-specific premature mortality, results showed that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, but not for dementia mortality or respiratory mortality. For the subtypes of cardiovascular mortality, adding salt to foods was significantly associated with higher risk of stroke mortality but not coronary heart disease mortality.

Other analyses suggested that the association of adding salt to foods with an increased risk of premature mortality appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of food high in potassium (fruits and vegetables).

The authors point out that the amounts of discretionary sodium intake (the salt used at the table or in home cooking) have been largely overlooked in previous studies, even though adding salt to foods accounts for a considerable proportion of total sodium intake (6%-20%) in Western diets.

“Our findings also support the notion that even a modest reduction in sodium intake is likely to result in substantial health benefits, especially when it is achieved in the general population,” they conclude.
 

Conflicting information from different studies

But the current findings seem to directly contradict those from another recent study by Messerli and colleagues showing higher sodium intake correlates with improved life expectancy.

Addressing these contradictory results, Dr. Qi commented: “The study of Messerli et al. is based on an ecological design, in which the analysis is performed on country average sodium intake, rather than at the individual level. This type of ecological study has several major limitations, such as the lack of individuals’ sodium intake, uncontrolled confounding, and the cross-sectional nature. Typically, ecological studies are not considered useful for testing hypothesis in epidemiological studies.”

Dr. Qi noted that, in contrast, his current study analyzes individuals’ exposure, and has a prospective design. “Our findings are supported by previous large-scale observational studies and clinical trials which show the high intake of sodium may adversely affect chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” =

Lead author of the ecological study, Franz Messerli, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, however, was not convinced by the findings from Dr. Qi’s study.

“The difference in 24-hour sodium intake between those who never/rarely added salt and those who always did is a minuscule 0.17 g. It is highly unlikely that such negligible quantity has any impact on blood pressure, not to mention cardiovascular mortality or life expectancy,” he commented in an interview.

He also pointed out that, in Dr. Qi’s study, people who added salt more frequently also consumed more red meat and processed meat, as well as less fish and less fruit and vegetables. “I would suggest that the bad habit of adding salt at the table is simply a powerful marker for an unhealthy diet.”

“There is no question that an excessive salt intake is harmful in hypertensive patients and increases the risk of stroke. But 0.17 g is not going to make any difference,” Dr. Messerli added.
 

What is the optimum level?

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Qi and colleagues in the European Heart Journal, Annika Rosengren, MD, PhD, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, noted that guidelines recommend a salt intake below 5 g, or about a teaspoon, per day. But few individuals meet this recommendation.

Because several recent studies show a U- or J-shaped association between salt and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reducing salt intake across the whole population may not be universally beneficial, Dr. Rosengren said.

“So far, what the collective evidence about salt seems to indicate is that healthy people consuming what constitutes normal levels of ordinary salt need not worry too much about their salt intake,” she wrote.

Instead, she advised a diet rich in fruit and vegetables should be a priority to counterbalance potentially harmful effects of salt, and for many other reasons.

And she added that people at high risk, such as those with hypertension who have a high salt intake, are probably well advised to cut down, and not adding extra salt to already prepared foods is one way of achieving this. However, at the individual level, the optimal salt consumption range, or the “sweet spot” remains to be determined. 

“Not adding extra salt to food is unlikely to be harmful and could contribute to strategies to lower population blood pressure levels,” Dr. Rosengren concluded.

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

Adding salt to food at the table was linked to a higher risk of premature death and a lower life expectancy, independent of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and pre-existing diseases, in a new study.

In the study of more than 500,000 people, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, those who always added salt to their food had a 28% increased risk of dying prematurely (defined as death before the age of 75 years).

Results also showed that adding salt to food was linked to a lower life expectancy. At the age of 50 years, life expectancy was reduced by 1.5 years in women and by 2.28 years in men who always added salt to their food, compared with those who never or rarely did.

However, these increased risks appeared to be attenuated with increasing intakes of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

The study was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“As far as we are aware, this is the first study to analyze adding salt to meals as a unique measurement for dietary sodium intake. Such a measure is less likely affected by other dietary components, especially potassium intake,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“Our study provides supportive evidence from a novel perspective to show the adverse effects of high sodium intake on human health, which is still a controversial topic. Our findings support the advice that reduction of salt intake by reducing the salt added to meals may benefit health and improve life expectancy. Our results also suggest that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are beneficial regarding lowering the adverse effects of salt,” he added.
 

Link between dietary salt and health is subject of longstanding debate

The researchers explained that the relationship between dietary salt intake and health remains a subject of longstanding debate, with previous studies on the association between sodium intake and mortality having shown conflicting results.

They attributed the inconsistent results to the low accuracy of sodium measurement, noting that sodium intake varies widely from day to day, but the majority of previous studies have largely relied on a single day’s urine collection or dietary survey for estimating the sodium intake, which is inadequate to assess an individual’s usual consumption levels.

They also pointed out that it is difficult to separate the contributions of intakes of sodium and potassium to health based on current methods for measuring dietary sodium and  potassium, and this may confound the association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

They noted that the hypothesis that a high-potassium intake may attenuate the adverse association of high-sodium intake with health outcomes has been proposed for many years, but studies assessing the interaction between sodium intake and potassium intake on the risk of mortality are scarce.

Adding salt to food at the table is a common eating behavior directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty tasting foods and habitual salt intake, the authors said, adding that commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors including potassium. “Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a unique assessment to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality.”
 

UK Biobank study

For the current study Dr. Qi and colleagues analyzed data from 501,379 people taking part in the UK Biobank study. When joining the study between 2006 and 2010, the participants were asked whether they added salt to their foods never/rarely, sometimes, usually or always. Participants were then followed for a median of 9 years.

After adjustment for sex, age, race, smoking, moderate drinking, body mass index, physical activity, Townsend deprivation index, high cholesterol, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, results showed an increasing risk of all-cause premature mortality rose with increasing frequency of adding salt to foods.

The adjusted hazard ratios, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.06) for those who added salt sometimes, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11) for those who usually added salt, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.35) for those who always added salt.

The researchers also estimated the lower survival time caused by the high frequency of adding salt to foods. At age 50, women who always added salt to foods had an average 1.50 fewer years of life expectancy, and men who always added salt had an average 2.28 fewer years of life expectancy, as compared with their counterparts who never/rarely added salt to foods.

For cause-specific premature mortality, results showed that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, but not for dementia mortality or respiratory mortality. For the subtypes of cardiovascular mortality, adding salt to foods was significantly associated with higher risk of stroke mortality but not coronary heart disease mortality.

Other analyses suggested that the association of adding salt to foods with an increased risk of premature mortality appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of food high in potassium (fruits and vegetables).

The authors point out that the amounts of discretionary sodium intake (the salt used at the table or in home cooking) have been largely overlooked in previous studies, even though adding salt to foods accounts for a considerable proportion of total sodium intake (6%-20%) in Western diets.

“Our findings also support the notion that even a modest reduction in sodium intake is likely to result in substantial health benefits, especially when it is achieved in the general population,” they conclude.
 

Conflicting information from different studies

But the current findings seem to directly contradict those from another recent study by Messerli and colleagues showing higher sodium intake correlates with improved life expectancy.

Addressing these contradictory results, Dr. Qi commented: “The study of Messerli et al. is based on an ecological design, in which the analysis is performed on country average sodium intake, rather than at the individual level. This type of ecological study has several major limitations, such as the lack of individuals’ sodium intake, uncontrolled confounding, and the cross-sectional nature. Typically, ecological studies are not considered useful for testing hypothesis in epidemiological studies.”

Dr. Qi noted that, in contrast, his current study analyzes individuals’ exposure, and has a prospective design. “Our findings are supported by previous large-scale observational studies and clinical trials which show the high intake of sodium may adversely affect chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” =

Lead author of the ecological study, Franz Messerli, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, however, was not convinced by the findings from Dr. Qi’s study.

“The difference in 24-hour sodium intake between those who never/rarely added salt and those who always did is a minuscule 0.17 g. It is highly unlikely that such negligible quantity has any impact on blood pressure, not to mention cardiovascular mortality or life expectancy,” he commented in an interview.

He also pointed out that, in Dr. Qi’s study, people who added salt more frequently also consumed more red meat and processed meat, as well as less fish and less fruit and vegetables. “I would suggest that the bad habit of adding salt at the table is simply a powerful marker for an unhealthy diet.”

“There is no question that an excessive salt intake is harmful in hypertensive patients and increases the risk of stroke. But 0.17 g is not going to make any difference,” Dr. Messerli added.
 

What is the optimum level?

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Qi and colleagues in the European Heart Journal, Annika Rosengren, MD, PhD, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, noted that guidelines recommend a salt intake below 5 g, or about a teaspoon, per day. But few individuals meet this recommendation.

Because several recent studies show a U- or J-shaped association between salt and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reducing salt intake across the whole population may not be universally beneficial, Dr. Rosengren said.

“So far, what the collective evidence about salt seems to indicate is that healthy people consuming what constitutes normal levels of ordinary salt need not worry too much about their salt intake,” she wrote.

Instead, she advised a diet rich in fruit and vegetables should be a priority to counterbalance potentially harmful effects of salt, and for many other reasons.

And she added that people at high risk, such as those with hypertension who have a high salt intake, are probably well advised to cut down, and not adding extra salt to already prepared foods is one way of achieving this. However, at the individual level, the optimal salt consumption range, or the “sweet spot” remains to be determined. 

“Not adding extra salt to food is unlikely to be harmful and could contribute to strategies to lower population blood pressure levels,” Dr. Rosengren concluded.

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

A retrospective investigation using medical claims data found no elevated risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.

The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.

They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.

Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.

Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.

Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.

A retrospective investigation using medical claims data found no elevated risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.

The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.

They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.

Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.

Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.

Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.

A retrospective investigation using medical claims data found no elevated risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.

The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.

They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.

Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.

Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.

Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.

Physicians who are sleep deprived have less empathy for patients who report pain – and they prescribe fewer analgesics, new research suggests.

In the first of two studies, resident physicians were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving a patient who complains of pain. They were asked about their likelihood of prescribing pain medication. The test was given to one group of residents who were just starting their day and to another group who were at the end of their night shift after being on call for 26 hours.

Results showed that the night shift residents were less likely than their daytime counterparts to say they would prescribe pain medication to the patients.

In further analysis of discharge notes from more than 13,000 electronic records of patients presenting with pain complaints at hospitals in Israel and the United States, the likelihood of an analgesic being prescribed during the night shift was 11% lower in Israel and 9% lower in the United States, compared with the day shift.

“Pain management is a major challenge, and a doctor’s perception of a patient’s subjective pain is susceptible to bias,” coinvestigator David Gozal, MD, the Marie M. and Harry L. Smith Endowed Chair of Child Health, University of Missouri–Columbia, said in a press release.

“This study demonstrated that night shift work is an important and previously unrecognized source of bias in pain management, likely stemming from impaired perception of pain,” Dr. Gozal added.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

‘Directional’ differences

Senior investigator Alex Gileles-Hillel, MD, senior pediatric pulmonologist and sleep researcher at Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, said in an interview that physicians must make “complex assessments of patients’ subjective pain experience” – and the “subjective nature of pain management decisions can give rise to various biases.”

Dr. Gileles-Hillel has previously researched the cognitive toll of night shift work on physicians.

“It’s pretty established, for example, not to drive when sleep deprived because cognition is impaired,” he said. The current study explored whether sleep deprivation could affect areas other than cognition, including emotions and empathy.

The researchers used “two complementary approaches.” First, they administered tests to measure empathy and pain management decisions in 67 resident physicians at Hadassah Medical Centers either following a 26-hour night shift that began at 8:00 a.m. the day before (n = 36) or immediately before starting the workday (n = 31).

There were no significant differences in demographic, sleep, or burnout measures between the two groups, except that night shift physicians had slept less than those in the daytime group (2.93 vs. 5.96 hours).

Participants completed two tasks. In the empathy-for-pain task, they rated their emotional reactions to pictures of individuals in pain. In the empathy accuracy task, they were asked to assess the feelings of videotaped individuals telling emotional stories.

They were then presented with two clinical scenarios: a female patient with a headache and a male patient with a backache. Following that, they were asked to assess the magnitude of the patients’ pain and how likely they would be to prescribe pain medication.

In the empathy-for-pain task, physicians’ empathy scores were significantly lower in the night shift group than in the day group (difference, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.10; P = .026). There were no significant differences between the groups in the empathy accuracy task.

In both scenarios, physicians in the night shift group assessed the patient’s pain as weaker in comparison with physicians in the day group. There was a statistically significant difference in the headache scenario but not the backache scenario.

Need for naps?

The researchers then analyzed analgesic prescription patterns drawn from three datasets of discharge notes of patients presenting to the emergency department with pain complaints (n = 13,482) at two branches of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center and the University of Missouri Health Center.

The researchers collected data, including discharge time, medications patients were prescribed upon discharge, and patients’ subjective pain rating on a scale of 0-10 on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Although patients’ VAS scores did not differ with respect to time or shift, patients were discharged with significantly less prescribed analgesics during the night shift in comparison with the day shift.

Compromised safety

In a comment, Eti Ben Simon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley, called the study “an important contribution to a growing list of studies that reveal how long night shifts reduce overall safety” for both patients and clinicians.

“It’s time to abandon the notion that the human brain can function as normal after being deprived of sleep for 24 hours,” said Dr. Ben Simon, who was not involved with the research.

“This is especially true in medicine, where we trust others to take care of us and feel our pain. These functions are simply not possible without adequate sleep,” she added.

Also commenting, Kannan Ramar, MD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, suggested that being cognizant of these findings “may help providers to mitigate this bias” of underprescribing pain medications when treating their patients.

Dr. Ramar, who is also a critical care specialist, pulmonologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., was not involved with the research.

He noted that “further studies that systematically evaluate this further in a prospective and blinded way will be important.”

The research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation, Joy Ventures, the Recanati Fund at the Jerusalem School of Business at the Hebrew University, and a fellowship from the Azrieli Foundation and received grant support to various investigators from the NIH, the Leda J. Sears Foundation, and the University of Missouri. The investigators, Ramar, and Ben Simon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians who are sleep deprived have less empathy for patients who report pain – and they prescribe fewer analgesics, new research suggests.

In the first of two studies, resident physicians were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving a patient who complains of pain. They were asked about their likelihood of prescribing pain medication. The test was given to one group of residents who were just starting their day and to another group who were at the end of their night shift after being on call for 26 hours.

Results showed that the night shift residents were less likely than their daytime counterparts to say they would prescribe pain medication to the patients.

In further analysis of discharge notes from more than 13,000 electronic records of patients presenting with pain complaints at hospitals in Israel and the United States, the likelihood of an analgesic being prescribed during the night shift was 11% lower in Israel and 9% lower in the United States, compared with the day shift.

“Pain management is a major challenge, and a doctor’s perception of a patient’s subjective pain is susceptible to bias,” coinvestigator David Gozal, MD, the Marie M. and Harry L. Smith Endowed Chair of Child Health, University of Missouri–Columbia, said in a press release.

“This study demonstrated that night shift work is an important and previously unrecognized source of bias in pain management, likely stemming from impaired perception of pain,” Dr. Gozal added.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

‘Directional’ differences

Senior investigator Alex Gileles-Hillel, MD, senior pediatric pulmonologist and sleep researcher at Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, said in an interview that physicians must make “complex assessments of patients’ subjective pain experience” – and the “subjective nature of pain management decisions can give rise to various biases.”

Dr. Gileles-Hillel has previously researched the cognitive toll of night shift work on physicians.

“It’s pretty established, for example, not to drive when sleep deprived because cognition is impaired,” he said. The current study explored whether sleep deprivation could affect areas other than cognition, including emotions and empathy.

The researchers used “two complementary approaches.” First, they administered tests to measure empathy and pain management decisions in 67 resident physicians at Hadassah Medical Centers either following a 26-hour night shift that began at 8:00 a.m. the day before (n = 36) or immediately before starting the workday (n = 31).

There were no significant differences in demographic, sleep, or burnout measures between the two groups, except that night shift physicians had slept less than those in the daytime group (2.93 vs. 5.96 hours).

Participants completed two tasks. In the empathy-for-pain task, they rated their emotional reactions to pictures of individuals in pain. In the empathy accuracy task, they were asked to assess the feelings of videotaped individuals telling emotional stories.

They were then presented with two clinical scenarios: a female patient with a headache and a male patient with a backache. Following that, they were asked to assess the magnitude of the patients’ pain and how likely they would be to prescribe pain medication.

In the empathy-for-pain task, physicians’ empathy scores were significantly lower in the night shift group than in the day group (difference, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.10; P = .026). There were no significant differences between the groups in the empathy accuracy task.

In both scenarios, physicians in the night shift group assessed the patient’s pain as weaker in comparison with physicians in the day group. There was a statistically significant difference in the headache scenario but not the backache scenario.

Need for naps?

The researchers then analyzed analgesic prescription patterns drawn from three datasets of discharge notes of patients presenting to the emergency department with pain complaints (n = 13,482) at two branches of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center and the University of Missouri Health Center.

The researchers collected data, including discharge time, medications patients were prescribed upon discharge, and patients’ subjective pain rating on a scale of 0-10 on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Although patients’ VAS scores did not differ with respect to time or shift, patients were discharged with significantly less prescribed analgesics during the night shift in comparison with the day shift.

Compromised safety

In a comment, Eti Ben Simon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley, called the study “an important contribution to a growing list of studies that reveal how long night shifts reduce overall safety” for both patients and clinicians.

“It’s time to abandon the notion that the human brain can function as normal after being deprived of sleep for 24 hours,” said Dr. Ben Simon, who was not involved with the research.

“This is especially true in medicine, where we trust others to take care of us and feel our pain. These functions are simply not possible without adequate sleep,” she added.

Also commenting, Kannan Ramar, MD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, suggested that being cognizant of these findings “may help providers to mitigate this bias” of underprescribing pain medications when treating their patients.

Dr. Ramar, who is also a critical care specialist, pulmonologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., was not involved with the research.

He noted that “further studies that systematically evaluate this further in a prospective and blinded way will be important.”

The research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation, Joy Ventures, the Recanati Fund at the Jerusalem School of Business at the Hebrew University, and a fellowship from the Azrieli Foundation and received grant support to various investigators from the NIH, the Leda J. Sears Foundation, and the University of Missouri. The investigators, Ramar, and Ben Simon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians who are sleep deprived have less empathy for patients who report pain – and they prescribe fewer analgesics, new research suggests.

In the first of two studies, resident physicians were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving a patient who complains of pain. They were asked about their likelihood of prescribing pain medication. The test was given to one group of residents who were just starting their day and to another group who were at the end of their night shift after being on call for 26 hours.

Results showed that the night shift residents were less likely than their daytime counterparts to say they would prescribe pain medication to the patients.

In further analysis of discharge notes from more than 13,000 electronic records of patients presenting with pain complaints at hospitals in Israel and the United States, the likelihood of an analgesic being prescribed during the night shift was 11% lower in Israel and 9% lower in the United States, compared with the day shift.

“Pain management is a major challenge, and a doctor’s perception of a patient’s subjective pain is susceptible to bias,” coinvestigator David Gozal, MD, the Marie M. and Harry L. Smith Endowed Chair of Child Health, University of Missouri–Columbia, said in a press release.

“This study demonstrated that night shift work is an important and previously unrecognized source of bias in pain management, likely stemming from impaired perception of pain,” Dr. Gozal added.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

‘Directional’ differences

Senior investigator Alex Gileles-Hillel, MD, senior pediatric pulmonologist and sleep researcher at Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, said in an interview that physicians must make “complex assessments of patients’ subjective pain experience” – and the “subjective nature of pain management decisions can give rise to various biases.”

Dr. Gileles-Hillel has previously researched the cognitive toll of night shift work on physicians.

“It’s pretty established, for example, not to drive when sleep deprived because cognition is impaired,” he said. The current study explored whether sleep deprivation could affect areas other than cognition, including emotions and empathy.

The researchers used “two complementary approaches.” First, they administered tests to measure empathy and pain management decisions in 67 resident physicians at Hadassah Medical Centers either following a 26-hour night shift that began at 8:00 a.m. the day before (n = 36) or immediately before starting the workday (n = 31).

There were no significant differences in demographic, sleep, or burnout measures between the two groups, except that night shift physicians had slept less than those in the daytime group (2.93 vs. 5.96 hours).

Participants completed two tasks. In the empathy-for-pain task, they rated their emotional reactions to pictures of individuals in pain. In the empathy accuracy task, they were asked to assess the feelings of videotaped individuals telling emotional stories.

They were then presented with two clinical scenarios: a female patient with a headache and a male patient with a backache. Following that, they were asked to assess the magnitude of the patients’ pain and how likely they would be to prescribe pain medication.

In the empathy-for-pain task, physicians’ empathy scores were significantly lower in the night shift group than in the day group (difference, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.10; P = .026). There were no significant differences between the groups in the empathy accuracy task.

In both scenarios, physicians in the night shift group assessed the patient’s pain as weaker in comparison with physicians in the day group. There was a statistically significant difference in the headache scenario but not the backache scenario.

Need for naps?

The researchers then analyzed analgesic prescription patterns drawn from three datasets of discharge notes of patients presenting to the emergency department with pain complaints (n = 13,482) at two branches of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center and the University of Missouri Health Center.

The researchers collected data, including discharge time, medications patients were prescribed upon discharge, and patients’ subjective pain rating on a scale of 0-10 on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Although patients’ VAS scores did not differ with respect to time or shift, patients were discharged with significantly less prescribed analgesics during the night shift in comparison with the day shift.

Compromised safety

In a comment, Eti Ben Simon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley, called the study “an important contribution to a growing list of studies that reveal how long night shifts reduce overall safety” for both patients and clinicians.

“It’s time to abandon the notion that the human brain can function as normal after being deprived of sleep for 24 hours,” said Dr. Ben Simon, who was not involved with the research.

“This is especially true in medicine, where we trust others to take care of us and feel our pain. These functions are simply not possible without adequate sleep,” she added.

Also commenting, Kannan Ramar, MD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, suggested that being cognizant of these findings “may help providers to mitigate this bias” of underprescribing pain medications when treating their patients.

Dr. Ramar, who is also a critical care specialist, pulmonologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., was not involved with the research.

He noted that “further studies that systematically evaluate this further in a prospective and blinded way will be important.”

The research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation, Joy Ventures, the Recanati Fund at the Jerusalem School of Business at the Hebrew University, and a fellowship from the Azrieli Foundation and received grant support to various investigators from the NIH, the Leda J. Sears Foundation, and the University of Missouri. The investigators, Ramar, and Ben Simon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New risk thresholds used to guide statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the latest European guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for statin use in low-risk countries, a new study has found.

The authors reported that new risk thresholds that were chosen for statin treatment in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines reduce statin eligibility to only 4% of the target population and essentially eliminate a statin indication in women.

“We have guidelines in place to try to prevent cardiovascular disease but the risk threshold in this new guideline means that almost nobody qualifies for treatment in many countries, which will lead to almost no prevention of future cardiovascular disease in those countries,” lead author Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, commented in an interview.

“We argue that the risk thresholds need to be lowered to get the statin eligibility in European countries to be in line with thresholds in the U.K. and U.S., which are based on randomized, controlled trials,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

An accompanying editorial describes the results of the study as “alarming,” and, if confirmed, said the guidelines should be revisited to “prevent a step backwards in the use of statins in primary prevention.”

For the study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues set out to compare the clinical performance of the new European prevention guidelines with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, United Kingdom–National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the 2019 European guidelines in a contemporary European cohort of 66,909 apparently healthy individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study.

During the 9-year follow-up, a range of 2,962-4,277 nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events was observed, as defined by the models in the various guidelines.

Results showed that although the new 2021 European guidelines introduced a new and improved risk model, known as SCORE2, the updated age-specific recommendations dramatically reduced eligibility for a class I recommendation for statin therapy to only 4% of individuals, aged 40-69 years, and less than 1% of women.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous 2019 European guidelines as well as current UK-NICE and US-ACC/AHA guidelines that provide class I/strong recommendations to 20%, 26%, and 34% of individuals, respectively, with better clinical performance in both men and women, the authors report.

The researchers also reported other analyses in which the sensitivity of the new European guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds.

Dr. Mortensen explained to this news organization that the original SCORE risk model used in ESC guidelines was problematic as it only predicts the 10-year risk of fatal atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, whereas those from the United States and United Kingdom used both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.

“Now the ESC has updated its model and the new model is much better in that it predicts both fatal and nonfatal events, and the predicted risk correlates well with the actual risk. So that’s a big step forward. However, the new thresholds for statin treatment are far too high for low-risk European countries because very few individuals will now qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

“The problem is that, if we use these guidelines, the vast majority of those individuals who will develop cardiovascular disease within 10 years will not be assigned statin therapy that can reduce this risk. There will be lots of individuals who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but these guidelines will not identify them as needing to take a statin,” Dr. Mortensen commented.

“If we use the U.K. or U.S. guidelines, far more people in these low-risk European countries would be eligible for statin therapy and we would prevent far more events than if we use the new ESC guidelines,” he added.

Dr. Mortensen explained that the problem arises from having four different risk score models in Europe for areas at different risk, but they all use the same risk thresholds for statin treatment.

“In general, Eastern European countries have higher risk than Western European countries, so these guidelines may work quite well in Eastern European countries but in low-risk Western European countries, where the low-risk score model is used, very few people will qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

While Dr. Mortensen is not against the idea of different risk models in areas that have different risks, he says this needs to be accompanied by different risk thresholds in the different risk areas.

Asked whether there is an argument that most individuals in low-risk countries may not need to take a statin, Dr. Mortensen countered: “One of the reasons the risk is low in many of these European countries is the high use of preventative medication. So, if a threshold that is too high is used most people will not take a statin anymore and the risk in these countries will increase again.”

Authors of the accompanying editorial, Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Pencina, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed with Dr. Mortensen that the problems appear to arise from use of a risk score that is highly influenced by regional cardiovascular burden.

They point out that under the current guidelines, a 55-year-old woman (smoker; systolic blood pressure, 130 mm Hg; non–HDL cholesterol, 4.0 mmol/L) would have a 10-year predicted risk of having a cardiovascular event of 5% in Denmark but a predicted risk of 18% in Romania.

“While there may be regional differences in environmental risk factors, location alone should not cause a fourfold difference in an individual’s predicted cardiovascular risk,” they wrote.

The editorialists also elaborated on Dr. Mortensen’s point that the new guideline creates a system that eventually becomes a victim of its own success.

“As countries are successful in implementing statin therapy to lower CVD, CVD rates drop, and progressively fewer individuals are then eligible for the very therapy that contributed to the decline in CVD in the first place,” they noted.

The editorialists called for the analysis to be replicated in other low-risk countries and extended to higher-risk regions, with a focus on potential overtreatment of men and older adults.

“If confirmed, the present findings should be a catalyst for the ESC to revisit or augment their current guidelines to prevent a step backward in the use of statins in primary prevention,” they concluded.

This news organization asked the ESC for a response to the findings, but did not comment by press time.

This work was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Copenhagen County Foundation, and Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Mortensen reported no disclosures.

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

New risk thresholds used to guide statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the latest European guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for statin use in low-risk countries, a new study has found.

The authors reported that new risk thresholds that were chosen for statin treatment in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines reduce statin eligibility to only 4% of the target population and essentially eliminate a statin indication in women.

“We have guidelines in place to try to prevent cardiovascular disease but the risk threshold in this new guideline means that almost nobody qualifies for treatment in many countries, which will lead to almost no prevention of future cardiovascular disease in those countries,” lead author Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, commented in an interview.

“We argue that the risk thresholds need to be lowered to get the statin eligibility in European countries to be in line with thresholds in the U.K. and U.S., which are based on randomized, controlled trials,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

An accompanying editorial describes the results of the study as “alarming,” and, if confirmed, said the guidelines should be revisited to “prevent a step backwards in the use of statins in primary prevention.”

For the study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues set out to compare the clinical performance of the new European prevention guidelines with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, United Kingdom–National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the 2019 European guidelines in a contemporary European cohort of 66,909 apparently healthy individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study.

During the 9-year follow-up, a range of 2,962-4,277 nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events was observed, as defined by the models in the various guidelines.

Results showed that although the new 2021 European guidelines introduced a new and improved risk model, known as SCORE2, the updated age-specific recommendations dramatically reduced eligibility for a class I recommendation for statin therapy to only 4% of individuals, aged 40-69 years, and less than 1% of women.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous 2019 European guidelines as well as current UK-NICE and US-ACC/AHA guidelines that provide class I/strong recommendations to 20%, 26%, and 34% of individuals, respectively, with better clinical performance in both men and women, the authors report.

The researchers also reported other analyses in which the sensitivity of the new European guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds.

Dr. Mortensen explained to this news organization that the original SCORE risk model used in ESC guidelines was problematic as it only predicts the 10-year risk of fatal atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, whereas those from the United States and United Kingdom used both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.

“Now the ESC has updated its model and the new model is much better in that it predicts both fatal and nonfatal events, and the predicted risk correlates well with the actual risk. So that’s a big step forward. However, the new thresholds for statin treatment are far too high for low-risk European countries because very few individuals will now qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

“The problem is that, if we use these guidelines, the vast majority of those individuals who will develop cardiovascular disease within 10 years will not be assigned statin therapy that can reduce this risk. There will be lots of individuals who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but these guidelines will not identify them as needing to take a statin,” Dr. Mortensen commented.

“If we use the U.K. or U.S. guidelines, far more people in these low-risk European countries would be eligible for statin therapy and we would prevent far more events than if we use the new ESC guidelines,” he added.

Dr. Mortensen explained that the problem arises from having four different risk score models in Europe for areas at different risk, but they all use the same risk thresholds for statin treatment.

“In general, Eastern European countries have higher risk than Western European countries, so these guidelines may work quite well in Eastern European countries but in low-risk Western European countries, where the low-risk score model is used, very few people will qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

While Dr. Mortensen is not against the idea of different risk models in areas that have different risks, he says this needs to be accompanied by different risk thresholds in the different risk areas.

Asked whether there is an argument that most individuals in low-risk countries may not need to take a statin, Dr. Mortensen countered: “One of the reasons the risk is low in many of these European countries is the high use of preventative medication. So, if a threshold that is too high is used most people will not take a statin anymore and the risk in these countries will increase again.”

Authors of the accompanying editorial, Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Pencina, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed with Dr. Mortensen that the problems appear to arise from use of a risk score that is highly influenced by regional cardiovascular burden.

They point out that under the current guidelines, a 55-year-old woman (smoker; systolic blood pressure, 130 mm Hg; non–HDL cholesterol, 4.0 mmol/L) would have a 10-year predicted risk of having a cardiovascular event of 5% in Denmark but a predicted risk of 18% in Romania.

“While there may be regional differences in environmental risk factors, location alone should not cause a fourfold difference in an individual’s predicted cardiovascular risk,” they wrote.

The editorialists also elaborated on Dr. Mortensen’s point that the new guideline creates a system that eventually becomes a victim of its own success.

“As countries are successful in implementing statin therapy to lower CVD, CVD rates drop, and progressively fewer individuals are then eligible for the very therapy that contributed to the decline in CVD in the first place,” they noted.

The editorialists called for the analysis to be replicated in other low-risk countries and extended to higher-risk regions, with a focus on potential overtreatment of men and older adults.

“If confirmed, the present findings should be a catalyst for the ESC to revisit or augment their current guidelines to prevent a step backward in the use of statins in primary prevention,” they concluded.

This news organization asked the ESC for a response to the findings, but did not comment by press time.

This work was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Copenhagen County Foundation, and Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Mortensen reported no disclosures.

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

New risk thresholds used to guide statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the latest European guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for statin use in low-risk countries, a new study has found.

The authors reported that new risk thresholds that were chosen for statin treatment in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines reduce statin eligibility to only 4% of the target population and essentially eliminate a statin indication in women.

“We have guidelines in place to try to prevent cardiovascular disease but the risk threshold in this new guideline means that almost nobody qualifies for treatment in many countries, which will lead to almost no prevention of future cardiovascular disease in those countries,” lead author Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, commented in an interview.

“We argue that the risk thresholds need to be lowered to get the statin eligibility in European countries to be in line with thresholds in the U.K. and U.S., which are based on randomized, controlled trials,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

An accompanying editorial describes the results of the study as “alarming,” and, if confirmed, said the guidelines should be revisited to “prevent a step backwards in the use of statins in primary prevention.”

For the study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues set out to compare the clinical performance of the new European prevention guidelines with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, United Kingdom–National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the 2019 European guidelines in a contemporary European cohort of 66,909 apparently healthy individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study.

During the 9-year follow-up, a range of 2,962-4,277 nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events was observed, as defined by the models in the various guidelines.

Results showed that although the new 2021 European guidelines introduced a new and improved risk model, known as SCORE2, the updated age-specific recommendations dramatically reduced eligibility for a class I recommendation for statin therapy to only 4% of individuals, aged 40-69 years, and less than 1% of women.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous 2019 European guidelines as well as current UK-NICE and US-ACC/AHA guidelines that provide class I/strong recommendations to 20%, 26%, and 34% of individuals, respectively, with better clinical performance in both men and women, the authors report.

The researchers also reported other analyses in which the sensitivity of the new European guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds.

Dr. Mortensen explained to this news organization that the original SCORE risk model used in ESC guidelines was problematic as it only predicts the 10-year risk of fatal atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, whereas those from the United States and United Kingdom used both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.

“Now the ESC has updated its model and the new model is much better in that it predicts both fatal and nonfatal events, and the predicted risk correlates well with the actual risk. So that’s a big step forward. However, the new thresholds for statin treatment are far too high for low-risk European countries because very few individuals will now qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

“The problem is that, if we use these guidelines, the vast majority of those individuals who will develop cardiovascular disease within 10 years will not be assigned statin therapy that can reduce this risk. There will be lots of individuals who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but these guidelines will not identify them as needing to take a statin,” Dr. Mortensen commented.

“If we use the U.K. or U.S. guidelines, far more people in these low-risk European countries would be eligible for statin therapy and we would prevent far more events than if we use the new ESC guidelines,” he added.

Dr. Mortensen explained that the problem arises from having four different risk score models in Europe for areas at different risk, but they all use the same risk thresholds for statin treatment.

“In general, Eastern European countries have higher risk than Western European countries, so these guidelines may work quite well in Eastern European countries but in low-risk Western European countries, where the low-risk score model is used, very few people will qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

While Dr. Mortensen is not against the idea of different risk models in areas that have different risks, he says this needs to be accompanied by different risk thresholds in the different risk areas.

Asked whether there is an argument that most individuals in low-risk countries may not need to take a statin, Dr. Mortensen countered: “One of the reasons the risk is low in many of these European countries is the high use of preventative medication. So, if a threshold that is too high is used most people will not take a statin anymore and the risk in these countries will increase again.”

Authors of the accompanying editorial, Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Pencina, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed with Dr. Mortensen that the problems appear to arise from use of a risk score that is highly influenced by regional cardiovascular burden.

They point out that under the current guidelines, a 55-year-old woman (smoker; systolic blood pressure, 130 mm Hg; non–HDL cholesterol, 4.0 mmol/L) would have a 10-year predicted risk of having a cardiovascular event of 5% in Denmark but a predicted risk of 18% in Romania.

“While there may be regional differences in environmental risk factors, location alone should not cause a fourfold difference in an individual’s predicted cardiovascular risk,” they wrote.

The editorialists also elaborated on Dr. Mortensen’s point that the new guideline creates a system that eventually becomes a victim of its own success.

“As countries are successful in implementing statin therapy to lower CVD, CVD rates drop, and progressively fewer individuals are then eligible for the very therapy that contributed to the decline in CVD in the first place,” they noted.

The editorialists called for the analysis to be replicated in other low-risk countries and extended to higher-risk regions, with a focus on potential overtreatment of men and older adults.

“If confirmed, the present findings should be a catalyst for the ESC to revisit or augment their current guidelines to prevent a step backward in the use of statins in primary prevention,” they concluded.

This news organization asked the ESC for a response to the findings, but did not comment by press time.

This work was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Copenhagen County Foundation, and Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Mortensen reported no disclosures.

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

Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.

Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.

Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.

But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.

“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.

Most doctors deal with the “curbside consult,” many times over, and most, according to a recent Medscape survey, will dole it out. When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.

Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”

“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”

Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.

“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”

This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.

When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.  

Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.

How to stay safe when asked for advice

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”

What about friends or acquaintances, however?

Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”

The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”

Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?

In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.

The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”

Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.

This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.

“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”

Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”

The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:

• Politely decline.
• Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
• Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.

Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”

Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.

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