Federal Practitioner

A ketogenic diet may reduce disability and improve quality of life, fatigue, and depression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets mimic a fasting state and promote a more efficient use of energy – and have previously been shown to affect immune regulation. The diet helps lower blood sugar in individuals with type 2 diabetes and has been used for years to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy, researchers note.

However, “there is a paucity of literature on the ketogenic diet in MS currently,” said principal investigator J. Nicholas Brenton, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“The current study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential clinical benefits of a ketogenic diet over 6 months in patients with relapsing MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

The were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Palatable, beneficial

The open-label, uncontrolled study included 65 patients with relapsing MS who followed a ketogenic diet for 6 months. Investigators monitored adherence by daily urine ketone testing.

Patient-reported fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life scores were obtained at baseline, in addition to fasting adipokines and pertinent MS-related clinical outcome metrics. Baseline study metrics were repeated at 3 and/or 6 months while on the ketogenic diet.

Of the patient group, 83% adhered to the ketogenic diet for the full 6-month study period.

The ketogenic diet was associated with reductions in fat mass from baseline to 6 months (41.3 vs. 32.0 kg; P < .001) and a significant decline in fatigue and depression scores, the investigators reported.

MS quality-of-life physical and mental composite scores also improved while on the ketogenic diet (P < .001 for both).

A significant decrease from baseline to 6 months in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, signifying improvement, was observed (2.3 vs. 1.9; P < .001).

Improvements were also shown on the 6-minute walk (1,631 vs. 1,733 feet; P < .001) and the nine-hole peg test (21.5 vs. 20.3 seconds; P < .001).

At 6 months on the diet, fasting serum leptin was significantly lower (25.5 vs. 14 ng/mL; P <.001), and adiponectin was higher (11.4 vs. 13.5 μg/mL, P = .002).
 

Justifies further research

The current study builds on an earlier one that Dr. Brenton and colleagues conducted in 2019 that showed that the ketogenic diet was feasible in patients with MS. “Our data justify the need for future studies of ketogenic diets as a complementary therapeutic approach to the treatment of MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

He noted that there may be multiple mechanisms of benefit when considering the ketogenic diet. “One avenue is via reduction in total body fat. This is an important aspect as we continue to learn more about the role of obesity and fat-derived inflammation in MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

“Ketogenic diets also have immunomodulatory properties,” such as the capacity to reduce oxidative damage from metabolic stress, increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and reduce systemic inflammation, he added. “These intrinsic properties of the ketogenic diet make it appealing to study in immune-mediated diseases, such as MS.”

Dr. Brenton cautioned that the data demonstrate the diet’s safety over 6 months but that the study was not designed to assess its long-term implications in MS. “Thus, while our results support the rationale for a larger-scale study of ketogenic diets as a complementary treatment for MS, our data does not support its widespread adoption outside of a clinical trial,” he said.
 

Remarkable adherence

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “variations of the ketogenic diet have been popularized in the general population for weight loss and further studied for other medical conditions [that are] largely immune-related, including MS.”

He noted that it was “remarkable” that the vast majority of study participants with MS adhered to the very regimented ketogenic diet for 6 months.

Seeing this translate into the real world “will be the next milestone, in addition to its impact on relapses and brain lesions as seen on MRI,” which are the classic markers of MS, said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He cautioned that “even if one can follow the ketogenic diet, certain conditions can be made worse. This includes kidney stones, liver disease, reflux, constipation, and other metabolic disorders.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the ZiMS Foundation. Dr. Brenton and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A ketogenic diet may reduce disability and improve quality of life, fatigue, and depression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets mimic a fasting state and promote a more efficient use of energy – and have previously been shown to affect immune regulation. The diet helps lower blood sugar in individuals with type 2 diabetes and has been used for years to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy, researchers note.

However, “there is a paucity of literature on the ketogenic diet in MS currently,” said principal investigator J. Nicholas Brenton, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“The current study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential clinical benefits of a ketogenic diet over 6 months in patients with relapsing MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

The were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Palatable, beneficial

The open-label, uncontrolled study included 65 patients with relapsing MS who followed a ketogenic diet for 6 months. Investigators monitored adherence by daily urine ketone testing.

Patient-reported fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life scores were obtained at baseline, in addition to fasting adipokines and pertinent MS-related clinical outcome metrics. Baseline study metrics were repeated at 3 and/or 6 months while on the ketogenic diet.

Of the patient group, 83% adhered to the ketogenic diet for the full 6-month study period.

The ketogenic diet was associated with reductions in fat mass from baseline to 6 months (41.3 vs. 32.0 kg; P < .001) and a significant decline in fatigue and depression scores, the investigators reported.

MS quality-of-life physical and mental composite scores also improved while on the ketogenic diet (P < .001 for both).

A significant decrease from baseline to 6 months in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, signifying improvement, was observed (2.3 vs. 1.9; P < .001).

Improvements were also shown on the 6-minute walk (1,631 vs. 1,733 feet; P < .001) and the nine-hole peg test (21.5 vs. 20.3 seconds; P < .001).

At 6 months on the diet, fasting serum leptin was significantly lower (25.5 vs. 14 ng/mL; P <.001), and adiponectin was higher (11.4 vs. 13.5 μg/mL, P = .002).
 

Justifies further research

The current study builds on an earlier one that Dr. Brenton and colleagues conducted in 2019 that showed that the ketogenic diet was feasible in patients with MS. “Our data justify the need for future studies of ketogenic diets as a complementary therapeutic approach to the treatment of MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

He noted that there may be multiple mechanisms of benefit when considering the ketogenic diet. “One avenue is via reduction in total body fat. This is an important aspect as we continue to learn more about the role of obesity and fat-derived inflammation in MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

“Ketogenic diets also have immunomodulatory properties,” such as the capacity to reduce oxidative damage from metabolic stress, increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and reduce systemic inflammation, he added. “These intrinsic properties of the ketogenic diet make it appealing to study in immune-mediated diseases, such as MS.”

Dr. Brenton cautioned that the data demonstrate the diet’s safety over 6 months but that the study was not designed to assess its long-term implications in MS. “Thus, while our results support the rationale for a larger-scale study of ketogenic diets as a complementary treatment for MS, our data does not support its widespread adoption outside of a clinical trial,” he said.
 

Remarkable adherence

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “variations of the ketogenic diet have been popularized in the general population for weight loss and further studied for other medical conditions [that are] largely immune-related, including MS.”

He noted that it was “remarkable” that the vast majority of study participants with MS adhered to the very regimented ketogenic diet for 6 months.

Seeing this translate into the real world “will be the next milestone, in addition to its impact on relapses and brain lesions as seen on MRI,” which are the classic markers of MS, said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He cautioned that “even if one can follow the ketogenic diet, certain conditions can be made worse. This includes kidney stones, liver disease, reflux, constipation, and other metabolic disorders.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the ZiMS Foundation. Dr. Brenton and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A ketogenic diet may reduce disability and improve quality of life, fatigue, and depression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests.

High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets mimic a fasting state and promote a more efficient use of energy – and have previously been shown to affect immune regulation. The diet helps lower blood sugar in individuals with type 2 diabetes and has been used for years to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy, researchers note.

However, “there is a paucity of literature on the ketogenic diet in MS currently,” said principal investigator J. Nicholas Brenton, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“The current study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential clinical benefits of a ketogenic diet over 6 months in patients with relapsing MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

The were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Palatable, beneficial

The open-label, uncontrolled study included 65 patients with relapsing MS who followed a ketogenic diet for 6 months. Investigators monitored adherence by daily urine ketone testing.

Patient-reported fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life scores were obtained at baseline, in addition to fasting adipokines and pertinent MS-related clinical outcome metrics. Baseline study metrics were repeated at 3 and/or 6 months while on the ketogenic diet.

Of the patient group, 83% adhered to the ketogenic diet for the full 6-month study period.

The ketogenic diet was associated with reductions in fat mass from baseline to 6 months (41.3 vs. 32.0 kg; P < .001) and a significant decline in fatigue and depression scores, the investigators reported.

MS quality-of-life physical and mental composite scores also improved while on the ketogenic diet (P < .001 for both).

A significant decrease from baseline to 6 months in Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, signifying improvement, was observed (2.3 vs. 1.9; P < .001).

Improvements were also shown on the 6-minute walk (1,631 vs. 1,733 feet; P < .001) and the nine-hole peg test (21.5 vs. 20.3 seconds; P < .001).

At 6 months on the diet, fasting serum leptin was significantly lower (25.5 vs. 14 ng/mL; P <.001), and adiponectin was higher (11.4 vs. 13.5 μg/mL, P = .002).
 

Justifies further research

The current study builds on an earlier one that Dr. Brenton and colleagues conducted in 2019 that showed that the ketogenic diet was feasible in patients with MS. “Our data justify the need for future studies of ketogenic diets as a complementary therapeutic approach to the treatment of MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

He noted that there may be multiple mechanisms of benefit when considering the ketogenic diet. “One avenue is via reduction in total body fat. This is an important aspect as we continue to learn more about the role of obesity and fat-derived inflammation in MS,” Dr. Brenton said.

“Ketogenic diets also have immunomodulatory properties,” such as the capacity to reduce oxidative damage from metabolic stress, increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and reduce systemic inflammation, he added. “These intrinsic properties of the ketogenic diet make it appealing to study in immune-mediated diseases, such as MS.”

Dr. Brenton cautioned that the data demonstrate the diet’s safety over 6 months but that the study was not designed to assess its long-term implications in MS. “Thus, while our results support the rationale for a larger-scale study of ketogenic diets as a complementary treatment for MS, our data does not support its widespread adoption outside of a clinical trial,” he said.
 

Remarkable adherence

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “variations of the ketogenic diet have been popularized in the general population for weight loss and further studied for other medical conditions [that are] largely immune-related, including MS.”

He noted that it was “remarkable” that the vast majority of study participants with MS adhered to the very regimented ketogenic diet for 6 months.

Seeing this translate into the real world “will be the next milestone, in addition to its impact on relapses and brain lesions as seen on MRI,” which are the classic markers of MS, said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He cautioned that “even if one can follow the ketogenic diet, certain conditions can be made worse. This includes kidney stones, liver disease, reflux, constipation, and other metabolic disorders.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the ZiMS Foundation. Dr. Brenton and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared to placebo in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone complete resection, according to findings from the phase 3 PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) study.

Patients in the pembrolizumab arm demonstrated median DFS nearly 12 months longer than those in the placebo arm (53.6 vs. 42.0 months). Investigators observed a DFS benefit for patients with any programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

“We believe that pembrolizumab has the potential to become a new adjuvant treatment option for patient with [stage IB to IIIA] non–small cell lung cancer following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy when recommended,” concluded first author Luis Paz-Ares, MD, chair of the clinical research unit at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CNIO & Universidad Complutense, Madrid. “Pembrolizumab provided a benefit regardless of pathological stage and PD-L1 progression subgroup.”

The findings were presented by Dr. Paz-Ares at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) March virtual plenary session and published March 17 in Annals of Oncology.

Pembrolizumab is the standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC, but its efficacy in early-stage disease remains unclear. To determine whether patients with early-stage disease benefit from pembrolizumab, Dr. Paz-Ares and colleagues randomized 1,177 adults with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC to 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 590) or placebo (n = 587) every 3 weeks.

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and any level of PD-L1 expression. Of the study participants, 168 in the pembrolizumab arm and 165 in the placebo arm had PD-L1 expression and a tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%.

Overall, patients receiving pembrolizumab had a DFS of 53.6 months compared to 42.0 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .0014). The DFS benefit was generally consistent across patients with PD-L1 TPS <1%, 1%-49%, and ≥50%. In the subset of patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, a slightly higher percentage of patients in the pembrolizumab group demonstrated DFS at 18 months (71.7% vs. 70.2%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.82; P = .14).

Overall survival (OS) at 18 months was 91.7% in the treatment arm and 91.3% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.87; P = .17), but the data were immature.

“The disease-free survival benefit was observed across most prespecified subgroups,” Dr. Paz-Ares said.

No new safety concerns were raised. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 34.1% of patients in the treatment arm and 25.8% in the placebo arm. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 19.8% of patients receiving pembrolizumab and 5.9% of patients in the placebo group.

Invited discussant Martin Reck, MD, said these findings represent forward progress. “We do see many patients with distant relapse, which indicates that we have to improve our control of the systemic relapse,” said Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department at the Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Germany.

Prior data provide a rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage NSCLC, and both the PEARLS study and the IMpower010 trial evaluating atezolizumab in a similar setting have demonstrated relevant improvements in DFS.

“I think we are entering the times of perioperative immunotherapies. We are seeing the first signals of efficacy for adjuvant immunotherapy in two large, randomized trials,” Dr. Reck said.

Based on the PEARLS trial results, Dr. Reck said that PD-L1 appears to have predictive and prognostic value but noted that “several other clinical trials say PD-L1 expression is a poor prognostic marker” for sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor. Given this potential inconsistency, Dr. Reck called for further follow-up in this patient population and for studies in larger groups of patients to further delineate the role of PD-L1 as well as EGFR mutations and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early NSCLC.

The PEARLS study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Paz-Ares and Dr. Reck disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared to placebo in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone complete resection, according to findings from the phase 3 PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) study.

Patients in the pembrolizumab arm demonstrated median DFS nearly 12 months longer than those in the placebo arm (53.6 vs. 42.0 months). Investigators observed a DFS benefit for patients with any programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

“We believe that pembrolizumab has the potential to become a new adjuvant treatment option for patient with [stage IB to IIIA] non–small cell lung cancer following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy when recommended,” concluded first author Luis Paz-Ares, MD, chair of the clinical research unit at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CNIO & Universidad Complutense, Madrid. “Pembrolizumab provided a benefit regardless of pathological stage and PD-L1 progression subgroup.”

The findings were presented by Dr. Paz-Ares at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) March virtual plenary session and published March 17 in Annals of Oncology.

Pembrolizumab is the standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC, but its efficacy in early-stage disease remains unclear. To determine whether patients with early-stage disease benefit from pembrolizumab, Dr. Paz-Ares and colleagues randomized 1,177 adults with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC to 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 590) or placebo (n = 587) every 3 weeks.

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and any level of PD-L1 expression. Of the study participants, 168 in the pembrolizumab arm and 165 in the placebo arm had PD-L1 expression and a tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%.

Overall, patients receiving pembrolizumab had a DFS of 53.6 months compared to 42.0 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .0014). The DFS benefit was generally consistent across patients with PD-L1 TPS <1%, 1%-49%, and ≥50%. In the subset of patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, a slightly higher percentage of patients in the pembrolizumab group demonstrated DFS at 18 months (71.7% vs. 70.2%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.82; P = .14).

Overall survival (OS) at 18 months was 91.7% in the treatment arm and 91.3% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.87; P = .17), but the data were immature.

“The disease-free survival benefit was observed across most prespecified subgroups,” Dr. Paz-Ares said.

No new safety concerns were raised. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 34.1% of patients in the treatment arm and 25.8% in the placebo arm. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 19.8% of patients receiving pembrolizumab and 5.9% of patients in the placebo group.

Invited discussant Martin Reck, MD, said these findings represent forward progress. “We do see many patients with distant relapse, which indicates that we have to improve our control of the systemic relapse,” said Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department at the Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Germany.

Prior data provide a rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage NSCLC, and both the PEARLS study and the IMpower010 trial evaluating atezolizumab in a similar setting have demonstrated relevant improvements in DFS.

“I think we are entering the times of perioperative immunotherapies. We are seeing the first signals of efficacy for adjuvant immunotherapy in two large, randomized trials,” Dr. Reck said.

Based on the PEARLS trial results, Dr. Reck said that PD-L1 appears to have predictive and prognostic value but noted that “several other clinical trials say PD-L1 expression is a poor prognostic marker” for sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor. Given this potential inconsistency, Dr. Reck called for further follow-up in this patient population and for studies in larger groups of patients to further delineate the role of PD-L1 as well as EGFR mutations and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early NSCLC.

The PEARLS study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Paz-Ares and Dr. Reck disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared to placebo in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone complete resection, according to findings from the phase 3 PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) study.

Patients in the pembrolizumab arm demonstrated median DFS nearly 12 months longer than those in the placebo arm (53.6 vs. 42.0 months). Investigators observed a DFS benefit for patients with any programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

“We believe that pembrolizumab has the potential to become a new adjuvant treatment option for patient with [stage IB to IIIA] non–small cell lung cancer following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy when recommended,” concluded first author Luis Paz-Ares, MD, chair of the clinical research unit at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CNIO & Universidad Complutense, Madrid. “Pembrolizumab provided a benefit regardless of pathological stage and PD-L1 progression subgroup.”

The findings were presented by Dr. Paz-Ares at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) March virtual plenary session and published March 17 in Annals of Oncology.

Pembrolizumab is the standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC, but its efficacy in early-stage disease remains unclear. To determine whether patients with early-stage disease benefit from pembrolizumab, Dr. Paz-Ares and colleagues randomized 1,177 adults with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC to 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 590) or placebo (n = 587) every 3 weeks.

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and any level of PD-L1 expression. Of the study participants, 168 in the pembrolizumab arm and 165 in the placebo arm had PD-L1 expression and a tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%.

Overall, patients receiving pembrolizumab had a DFS of 53.6 months compared to 42.0 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .0014). The DFS benefit was generally consistent across patients with PD-L1 TPS <1%, 1%-49%, and ≥50%. In the subset of patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, a slightly higher percentage of patients in the pembrolizumab group demonstrated DFS at 18 months (71.7% vs. 70.2%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.82; P = .14).

Overall survival (OS) at 18 months was 91.7% in the treatment arm and 91.3% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.87; P = .17), but the data were immature.

“The disease-free survival benefit was observed across most prespecified subgroups,” Dr. Paz-Ares said.

No new safety concerns were raised. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 34.1% of patients in the treatment arm and 25.8% in the placebo arm. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 19.8% of patients receiving pembrolizumab and 5.9% of patients in the placebo group.

Invited discussant Martin Reck, MD, said these findings represent forward progress. “We do see many patients with distant relapse, which indicates that we have to improve our control of the systemic relapse,” said Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department at the Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Germany.

Prior data provide a rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage NSCLC, and both the PEARLS study and the IMpower010 trial evaluating atezolizumab in a similar setting have demonstrated relevant improvements in DFS.

“I think we are entering the times of perioperative immunotherapies. We are seeing the first signals of efficacy for adjuvant immunotherapy in two large, randomized trials,” Dr. Reck said.

Based on the PEARLS trial results, Dr. Reck said that PD-L1 appears to have predictive and prognostic value but noted that “several other clinical trials say PD-L1 expression is a poor prognostic marker” for sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor. Given this potential inconsistency, Dr. Reck called for further follow-up in this patient population and for studies in larger groups of patients to further delineate the role of PD-L1 as well as EGFR mutations and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early NSCLC.

The PEARLS study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Paz-Ares and Dr. Reck disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

Even by cautious calculations, the worldwide incidence of cutaneous melanoma is high and predicted to rise sharply over the next 2 decades, cancer epidemiologists warn.

An estimated 325,000 people worldwide received a new diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in 2020, and if present trends continue, the incidence of new cases is predicted to increase by about 50% in 2040, with melanoma deaths expected to rise by almost 70%, Melina Arnold, PhD, from the Cancer Surveillance Branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues reported.

“Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer; this epidemiological assessment found a heavy public health and economic burden, and our projections suggest that it will remain so in the coming decades,” they wrote in a study published online in JAMA Dermatology.

In an accompanying editorial, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, MPharm and Ivo Abraham, PhD from the Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, commented that the findings are “sobering,” but may substantially underestimate the gravity of the problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

“The study by Arnold et al. brings to the fore a public health concern that requires global attention and initiates conversations particularly related to LMIC settings, where the incidence and mortality of melanoma is thought to be minimal and for which preventive measures may be insufficient,” they wrote.

Down Under nations lead

Dr. Arnold and colleagues looked at data on age-standardized melanoma incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) by country, each of 20 world regions as defined by the United Nations, and according to the UN’s four-tier Human Development Index, which stratifies countries into low-, medium-, high-, and very high–income categories.

As noted previously, the researchers estimated that there were 325,000 new melanoma cases worldwide in 2020 (174,000 cases in males and 151,000 in females). There were 57,000 estimated melanoma deaths the same year (32,000 in males and 25,000 in females.

The highest incidence rates were seen in Australia and New Zealand, at 42 per 100,000 PY among males and 31 per 100,000 PY in females, followed by Western Europe with 19 per 100,000 PY in both males and females, North America with 18 and 14 cases per 100,000 PY in males and females respectively, and Northern Europe, with 17 per 100,000 PY in males, and 18 per 100,000 PY in females.

In contrast, in most African and Asian countries melanoma was rare, with rates commonly less than 1 per 100,000 PY, the investigators noted.

The melanoma mortality rate was highest in New Zealand, at 5 per 100,000 PY. Mortality rates worldwide varied less widely than incidence rates. In most other regions of the world, mortality rates were “much lower,” ranging between 0.2-1.0 per 100,000 PY, they wrote.

The authors estimated that, if 2020 rates remain stable, the global burden from melanoma in 2040 will increase to approximately 510,000 new cases and 96,000 deaths.

Public health efforts needed

In their editorial, Ms. Obeng-Kusi and Dr. Abraham pointed out that the study was hampered by the limited availability of cancer data from LMICs, leading the authors to estimate incidence and mortality rates based on proxy data, such as statistical modeling or averaged rates from neighboring countries.

They emphasized the need for going beyond the statistics: “Specific to cutaneous melanoma data, what is most important globally, knowing the exact numbers of cases and deaths or understanding the order of magnitude of the present and future epidemiology? No doubt the latter. Melanoma can be treated more easily if caught at earlier stages.”

Projections such as those provided by Dr. Arnold and colleagues could help to raise awareness of the importance of decreasing exposure to UV radiation, which accounts for three-fourths of all incident melanomas, the editorialists said.

The study was funded in part by a grant to coauthor Anna E. Cust, PhD, MPH. Dr. Cust reported receiving a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr. Arnold had no conflicts of interested to disclose. Dr. Abraham reported financial relationships with various entities. Ms. Obeng-Kusi had no disclosures.

Even by cautious calculations, the worldwide incidence of cutaneous melanoma is high and predicted to rise sharply over the next 2 decades, cancer epidemiologists warn.

An estimated 325,000 people worldwide received a new diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in 2020, and if present trends continue, the incidence of new cases is predicted to increase by about 50% in 2040, with melanoma deaths expected to rise by almost 70%, Melina Arnold, PhD, from the Cancer Surveillance Branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues reported.

“Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer; this epidemiological assessment found a heavy public health and economic burden, and our projections suggest that it will remain so in the coming decades,” they wrote in a study published online in JAMA Dermatology.

In an accompanying editorial, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, MPharm and Ivo Abraham, PhD from the Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, commented that the findings are “sobering,” but may substantially underestimate the gravity of the problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

“The study by Arnold et al. brings to the fore a public health concern that requires global attention and initiates conversations particularly related to LMIC settings, where the incidence and mortality of melanoma is thought to be minimal and for which preventive measures may be insufficient,” they wrote.

Down Under nations lead

Dr. Arnold and colleagues looked at data on age-standardized melanoma incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) by country, each of 20 world regions as defined by the United Nations, and according to the UN’s four-tier Human Development Index, which stratifies countries into low-, medium-, high-, and very high–income categories.

As noted previously, the researchers estimated that there were 325,000 new melanoma cases worldwide in 2020 (174,000 cases in males and 151,000 in females). There were 57,000 estimated melanoma deaths the same year (32,000 in males and 25,000 in females.

The highest incidence rates were seen in Australia and New Zealand, at 42 per 100,000 PY among males and 31 per 100,000 PY in females, followed by Western Europe with 19 per 100,000 PY in both males and females, North America with 18 and 14 cases per 100,000 PY in males and females respectively, and Northern Europe, with 17 per 100,000 PY in males, and 18 per 100,000 PY in females.

In contrast, in most African and Asian countries melanoma was rare, with rates commonly less than 1 per 100,000 PY, the investigators noted.

The melanoma mortality rate was highest in New Zealand, at 5 per 100,000 PY. Mortality rates worldwide varied less widely than incidence rates. In most other regions of the world, mortality rates were “much lower,” ranging between 0.2-1.0 per 100,000 PY, they wrote.

The authors estimated that, if 2020 rates remain stable, the global burden from melanoma in 2040 will increase to approximately 510,000 new cases and 96,000 deaths.

Public health efforts needed

In their editorial, Ms. Obeng-Kusi and Dr. Abraham pointed out that the study was hampered by the limited availability of cancer data from LMICs, leading the authors to estimate incidence and mortality rates based on proxy data, such as statistical modeling or averaged rates from neighboring countries.

They emphasized the need for going beyond the statistics: “Specific to cutaneous melanoma data, what is most important globally, knowing the exact numbers of cases and deaths or understanding the order of magnitude of the present and future epidemiology? No doubt the latter. Melanoma can be treated more easily if caught at earlier stages.”

Projections such as those provided by Dr. Arnold and colleagues could help to raise awareness of the importance of decreasing exposure to UV radiation, which accounts for three-fourths of all incident melanomas, the editorialists said.

The study was funded in part by a grant to coauthor Anna E. Cust, PhD, MPH. Dr. Cust reported receiving a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr. Arnold had no conflicts of interested to disclose. Dr. Abraham reported financial relationships with various entities. Ms. Obeng-Kusi had no disclosures.

Even by cautious calculations, the worldwide incidence of cutaneous melanoma is high and predicted to rise sharply over the next 2 decades, cancer epidemiologists warn.

An estimated 325,000 people worldwide received a new diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in 2020, and if present trends continue, the incidence of new cases is predicted to increase by about 50% in 2040, with melanoma deaths expected to rise by almost 70%, Melina Arnold, PhD, from the Cancer Surveillance Branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues reported.

“Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer; this epidemiological assessment found a heavy public health and economic burden, and our projections suggest that it will remain so in the coming decades,” they wrote in a study published online in JAMA Dermatology.

In an accompanying editorial, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, MPharm and Ivo Abraham, PhD from the Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, commented that the findings are “sobering,” but may substantially underestimate the gravity of the problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

“The study by Arnold et al. brings to the fore a public health concern that requires global attention and initiates conversations particularly related to LMIC settings, where the incidence and mortality of melanoma is thought to be minimal and for which preventive measures may be insufficient,” they wrote.

Down Under nations lead

Dr. Arnold and colleagues looked at data on age-standardized melanoma incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 person-years (PY) by country, each of 20 world regions as defined by the United Nations, and according to the UN’s four-tier Human Development Index, which stratifies countries into low-, medium-, high-, and very high–income categories.

As noted previously, the researchers estimated that there were 325,000 new melanoma cases worldwide in 2020 (174,000 cases in males and 151,000 in females). There were 57,000 estimated melanoma deaths the same year (32,000 in males and 25,000 in females.

The highest incidence rates were seen in Australia and New Zealand, at 42 per 100,000 PY among males and 31 per 100,000 PY in females, followed by Western Europe with 19 per 100,000 PY in both males and females, North America with 18 and 14 cases per 100,000 PY in males and females respectively, and Northern Europe, with 17 per 100,000 PY in males, and 18 per 100,000 PY in females.

In contrast, in most African and Asian countries melanoma was rare, with rates commonly less than 1 per 100,000 PY, the investigators noted.

The melanoma mortality rate was highest in New Zealand, at 5 per 100,000 PY. Mortality rates worldwide varied less widely than incidence rates. In most other regions of the world, mortality rates were “much lower,” ranging between 0.2-1.0 per 100,000 PY, they wrote.

The authors estimated that, if 2020 rates remain stable, the global burden from melanoma in 2040 will increase to approximately 510,000 new cases and 96,000 deaths.

Public health efforts needed

In their editorial, Ms. Obeng-Kusi and Dr. Abraham pointed out that the study was hampered by the limited availability of cancer data from LMICs, leading the authors to estimate incidence and mortality rates based on proxy data, such as statistical modeling or averaged rates from neighboring countries.

They emphasized the need for going beyond the statistics: “Specific to cutaneous melanoma data, what is most important globally, knowing the exact numbers of cases and deaths or understanding the order of magnitude of the present and future epidemiology? No doubt the latter. Melanoma can be treated more easily if caught at earlier stages.”

Projections such as those provided by Dr. Arnold and colleagues could help to raise awareness of the importance of decreasing exposure to UV radiation, which accounts for three-fourths of all incident melanomas, the editorialists said.

The study was funded in part by a grant to coauthor Anna E. Cust, PhD, MPH. Dr. Cust reported receiving a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr. Arnold had no conflicts of interested to disclose. Dr. Abraham reported financial relationships with various entities. Ms. Obeng-Kusi had no disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

There is a two-lane bridge in my town. It is quaint and picturesque, and when we first moved here, I would gaze out at the water as I drove, letting my mind wander along with the seagulls drifting alongside the car. Until one day, crossing back over, I passed a school bus stopped in the other lane, and instead of waving back, the driver gave me such a fierce look of disapproval I felt like I’d been to the principal’s office. What had I done?

I started paying more attention to the pattern of the other cars on the bridge. Although it appeared to be a standard two-lane width, the lanes weren’t quite wide enough if a school bus or large truck needed to cross at the same time as a car coming from the opposite direction. They had to wait until the other lane was clear. It was an unwritten rule of the town that if you saw a school bus on the other side, you stopped your car and yielded the bridge to the bus. It took me weeks to figure this out. When I did, I felt like I finally belonged in the community. Before, I’d been an outsider.

This got me thinking about culture. Every place has its unwritten rules, whether a community or a workplace. But how do we know the culture of a place? It’s pretty much impossible until we experience it for ourselves.

When I did figure out the bridge, I had a little bit of anger, to be honest. How was I supposed to know about the lanes? There weren’t any signs. Geez.

Now, when I approach the bridge, I don’t even think about it. I know what to do if I see a bus coming.

But sometimes I remember that time of confusion before I deciphered the unwritten rule. I still have a twinge of guilt for having done something wrong, even though it hadn’t been my fault.

It reminded me of a memory from medical training. I was an MS4, and my ER rotation was in a busy county hospital with a level I trauma center. To say that the place was chaotic would be an understatement.

On the first morning, I was shown the chart rack (yes, this was back in the day of paper charts). Charts were placed in the order that patients arrived. Med students and residents were to take a chart in chronological order, go triage and assess the patient, and then find an attending. Once finished, you put the chart back on the rack and picked up the next one. This was the extent of my orientation to the ER.

The days and weeks of the rotation flew by. It was a busy and exciting time. By the end of the month, I’d come to feel a part of the team.

Until one day, after finishing discharging a patient, an attending asked me, “Where’s the billing sheet?”

I had no idea what she was talking about. No one had ever shown me a billing sheet. But by this point, as an MS4, I knew well that if an attending asked you something you didn’t know the answer to, you shouldn’t just say that you didn’t know. You should try to figure out if you could at least approximate an answer first.

As I scrambled in my mind to figure out what she was asking me, she took one look at the apprehension in my eyes and asked again, raising her voice, “You haven’t been doing the billing sheets?”

I thought back to the first day of the rotation. The cursory 30-second orientation. Chart rack. Take one. See the patient. Put it back. See the next patient. Nothing about billing sheets.

“No,” I said. “No one ever told me about – ”

But the attending didn’t care that I hadn’t been instructed on the billing sheets. She ripped into me, yelling about how she couldn’t believe I’d been working there the entire month and was not doing the billing sheets. She showed me what they were and where they were supposed to be going and, in front of the whole staff, treated me like not only the biggest idiot she’d ever worked with but that the hospital had ever seen.

As she berated me, I thought about all the patients I’d seen that month. All the billing sheets I hadn’t placed in the pile. All the attendings who hadn’t gotten credit for the patients they’d staffed with me.

But how could I have known? I wanted to ask. How could I have known if nobody showed me or told me?

It was like the bridge. I was in a new environment and somehow expected to know the rules without anyone telling me; and when I didn’t know, people treated me like I’d done it the wrong way on purpose.

I didn’t end up saying anything more to that attending. What could I have said? She had already unleashed a mountain of her pent-up anger at me.

What I did decide in that moment was that I would never be an attending like that.

Like the bridge, this memory years later can still make me feel guilt and shame for doing something wrong. Even though it wasn’t my fault.

I was thinking about this recently with the Match. Thousands of freshly graduated medical students embarking on their new positions as interns in teaching hospitals across the country.

For anyone who, like me, struggled with the unwritten rules of the medical culture with each new rotation, remember to be kind to yourself. If someone treats you poorly for not knowing something, you are not an idiot. You’ve worked incredibly hard to get where you are, and you deserve to be there.

For attendings and more senior trainees, remember what it was like to be starting in a new place. We all make mistakes, and often it’s simply because of a lack of information.

Trainees shouldn’t have to suffer and be made to feel like outsiders until they figure out the unwritten rules of the place. They belong.
 

Dr. Lycette is medical director of Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a two-lane bridge in my town. It is quaint and picturesque, and when we first moved here, I would gaze out at the water as I drove, letting my mind wander along with the seagulls drifting alongside the car. Until one day, crossing back over, I passed a school bus stopped in the other lane, and instead of waving back, the driver gave me such a fierce look of disapproval I felt like I’d been to the principal’s office. What had I done?

I started paying more attention to the pattern of the other cars on the bridge. Although it appeared to be a standard two-lane width, the lanes weren’t quite wide enough if a school bus or large truck needed to cross at the same time as a car coming from the opposite direction. They had to wait until the other lane was clear. It was an unwritten rule of the town that if you saw a school bus on the other side, you stopped your car and yielded the bridge to the bus. It took me weeks to figure this out. When I did, I felt like I finally belonged in the community. Before, I’d been an outsider.

This got me thinking about culture. Every place has its unwritten rules, whether a community or a workplace. But how do we know the culture of a place? It’s pretty much impossible until we experience it for ourselves.

When I did figure out the bridge, I had a little bit of anger, to be honest. How was I supposed to know about the lanes? There weren’t any signs. Geez.

Now, when I approach the bridge, I don’t even think about it. I know what to do if I see a bus coming.

But sometimes I remember that time of confusion before I deciphered the unwritten rule. I still have a twinge of guilt for having done something wrong, even though it hadn’t been my fault.

It reminded me of a memory from medical training. I was an MS4, and my ER rotation was in a busy county hospital with a level I trauma center. To say that the place was chaotic would be an understatement.

On the first morning, I was shown the chart rack (yes, this was back in the day of paper charts). Charts were placed in the order that patients arrived. Med students and residents were to take a chart in chronological order, go triage and assess the patient, and then find an attending. Once finished, you put the chart back on the rack and picked up the next one. This was the extent of my orientation to the ER.

The days and weeks of the rotation flew by. It was a busy and exciting time. By the end of the month, I’d come to feel a part of the team.

Until one day, after finishing discharging a patient, an attending asked me, “Where’s the billing sheet?”

I had no idea what she was talking about. No one had ever shown me a billing sheet. But by this point, as an MS4, I knew well that if an attending asked you something you didn’t know the answer to, you shouldn’t just say that you didn’t know. You should try to figure out if you could at least approximate an answer first.

As I scrambled in my mind to figure out what she was asking me, she took one look at the apprehension in my eyes and asked again, raising her voice, “You haven’t been doing the billing sheets?”

I thought back to the first day of the rotation. The cursory 30-second orientation. Chart rack. Take one. See the patient. Put it back. See the next patient. Nothing about billing sheets.

“No,” I said. “No one ever told me about – ”

But the attending didn’t care that I hadn’t been instructed on the billing sheets. She ripped into me, yelling about how she couldn’t believe I’d been working there the entire month and was not doing the billing sheets. She showed me what they were and where they were supposed to be going and, in front of the whole staff, treated me like not only the biggest idiot she’d ever worked with but that the hospital had ever seen.

As she berated me, I thought about all the patients I’d seen that month. All the billing sheets I hadn’t placed in the pile. All the attendings who hadn’t gotten credit for the patients they’d staffed with me.

But how could I have known? I wanted to ask. How could I have known if nobody showed me or told me?

It was like the bridge. I was in a new environment and somehow expected to know the rules without anyone telling me; and when I didn’t know, people treated me like I’d done it the wrong way on purpose.

I didn’t end up saying anything more to that attending. What could I have said? She had already unleashed a mountain of her pent-up anger at me.

What I did decide in that moment was that I would never be an attending like that.

Like the bridge, this memory years later can still make me feel guilt and shame for doing something wrong. Even though it wasn’t my fault.

I was thinking about this recently with the Match. Thousands of freshly graduated medical students embarking on their new positions as interns in teaching hospitals across the country.

For anyone who, like me, struggled with the unwritten rules of the medical culture with each new rotation, remember to be kind to yourself. If someone treats you poorly for not knowing something, you are not an idiot. You’ve worked incredibly hard to get where you are, and you deserve to be there.

For attendings and more senior trainees, remember what it was like to be starting in a new place. We all make mistakes, and often it’s simply because of a lack of information.

Trainees shouldn’t have to suffer and be made to feel like outsiders until they figure out the unwritten rules of the place. They belong.
 

Dr. Lycette is medical director of Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a two-lane bridge in my town. It is quaint and picturesque, and when we first moved here, I would gaze out at the water as I drove, letting my mind wander along with the seagulls drifting alongside the car. Until one day, crossing back over, I passed a school bus stopped in the other lane, and instead of waving back, the driver gave me such a fierce look of disapproval I felt like I’d been to the principal’s office. What had I done?

I started paying more attention to the pattern of the other cars on the bridge. Although it appeared to be a standard two-lane width, the lanes weren’t quite wide enough if a school bus or large truck needed to cross at the same time as a car coming from the opposite direction. They had to wait until the other lane was clear. It was an unwritten rule of the town that if you saw a school bus on the other side, you stopped your car and yielded the bridge to the bus. It took me weeks to figure this out. When I did, I felt like I finally belonged in the community. Before, I’d been an outsider.

This got me thinking about culture. Every place has its unwritten rules, whether a community or a workplace. But how do we know the culture of a place? It’s pretty much impossible until we experience it for ourselves.

When I did figure out the bridge, I had a little bit of anger, to be honest. How was I supposed to know about the lanes? There weren’t any signs. Geez.

Now, when I approach the bridge, I don’t even think about it. I know what to do if I see a bus coming.

But sometimes I remember that time of confusion before I deciphered the unwritten rule. I still have a twinge of guilt for having done something wrong, even though it hadn’t been my fault.

It reminded me of a memory from medical training. I was an MS4, and my ER rotation was in a busy county hospital with a level I trauma center. To say that the place was chaotic would be an understatement.

On the first morning, I was shown the chart rack (yes, this was back in the day of paper charts). Charts were placed in the order that patients arrived. Med students and residents were to take a chart in chronological order, go triage and assess the patient, and then find an attending. Once finished, you put the chart back on the rack and picked up the next one. This was the extent of my orientation to the ER.

The days and weeks of the rotation flew by. It was a busy and exciting time. By the end of the month, I’d come to feel a part of the team.

Until one day, after finishing discharging a patient, an attending asked me, “Where’s the billing sheet?”

I had no idea what she was talking about. No one had ever shown me a billing sheet. But by this point, as an MS4, I knew well that if an attending asked you something you didn’t know the answer to, you shouldn’t just say that you didn’t know. You should try to figure out if you could at least approximate an answer first.

As I scrambled in my mind to figure out what she was asking me, she took one look at the apprehension in my eyes and asked again, raising her voice, “You haven’t been doing the billing sheets?”

I thought back to the first day of the rotation. The cursory 30-second orientation. Chart rack. Take one. See the patient. Put it back. See the next patient. Nothing about billing sheets.

“No,” I said. “No one ever told me about – ”

But the attending didn’t care that I hadn’t been instructed on the billing sheets. She ripped into me, yelling about how she couldn’t believe I’d been working there the entire month and was not doing the billing sheets. She showed me what they were and where they were supposed to be going and, in front of the whole staff, treated me like not only the biggest idiot she’d ever worked with but that the hospital had ever seen.

As she berated me, I thought about all the patients I’d seen that month. All the billing sheets I hadn’t placed in the pile. All the attendings who hadn’t gotten credit for the patients they’d staffed with me.

But how could I have known? I wanted to ask. How could I have known if nobody showed me or told me?

It was like the bridge. I was in a new environment and somehow expected to know the rules without anyone telling me; and when I didn’t know, people treated me like I’d done it the wrong way on purpose.

I didn’t end up saying anything more to that attending. What could I have said? She had already unleashed a mountain of her pent-up anger at me.

What I did decide in that moment was that I would never be an attending like that.

Like the bridge, this memory years later can still make me feel guilt and shame for doing something wrong. Even though it wasn’t my fault.

I was thinking about this recently with the Match. Thousands of freshly graduated medical students embarking on their new positions as interns in teaching hospitals across the country.

For anyone who, like me, struggled with the unwritten rules of the medical culture with each new rotation, remember to be kind to yourself. If someone treats you poorly for not knowing something, you are not an idiot. You’ve worked incredibly hard to get where you are, and you deserve to be there.

For attendings and more senior trainees, remember what it was like to be starting in a new place. We all make mistakes, and often it’s simply because of a lack of information.

Trainees shouldn’t have to suffer and be made to feel like outsiders until they figure out the unwritten rules of the place. They belong.
 

Dr. Lycette is medical director of Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

Insomnia rates continue to rise in the setting of the pandemic,¹ contributing to increasing rates of depression and anxiety, as well as worsening symptoms of other severe mental illnesses. Data suggests this symptom, defined as chronic sleep onset and/or sleep continuity problems associated with impaired daytime functioning, is common in psychiatric illnesses, and can worsen their course.²

The incidence of psychiatric illness in patients with insomnia is estimated at near 50%, with the highest rates found in mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder, as well as anxiety disorders.³ In patients with diagnosed major depressive disorder, insomnia rates can approach 90%.^4-6

Courtesy Dr. Jennifer Reid

Insomnia has been identified as a risk factor for development of mental illness, including doubling the risk of major depressive disorder and tripling the risk of any depressive or anxiety disorder.^7,8 It can also significantly increase the risk of alcohol abuse and psychosis.⁸

Sleep disturbances can worsen symptoms of diagnosed mental illness, including substance abuse, mood and psychotic disorders.^9-10 In one study, nearly 75% of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar spectrum disorder had at least one type of sleep disturbance (insomnia, hypersomnia, or delayed sleep phase).¹⁰ This was almost twice the rate in healthy controls. Importantly, compared with well-rested subjects with mental illness in this study, sleep-disordered participants had higher rates of negative and depressive symptoms on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, as well as significantly lower function via the global assessment of functioning.^11,12

Additional data suggests simply being awake during the night (00:00-05:59) elevates risk of suicide. The mean incident rate of completed suicide in one study was a striking four times the rate noted during daytime hours (06:00-23:59 ) (P < .001).¹³

Although insomnia symptoms can resolve after relief from a particular life stressor, as many as half of patients with more severe symptoms develop a chronic course.¹⁴ This then leads to an extended use of many types of sedative-hypnotics designed and studied primarily for short-term use.¹⁵ In a survey reviewing national use of prescription drugs for insomnia, as many as 20% of individuals use a medication to target insomnia in a given month.¹⁶

Fortunately, despite the many challenges posed by COVID-19, particularly for those with psychiatric illness and limited access to care, telehealth has become more readily available. Additionally, digital versions of evidence-based treatments specifically for sleep problems, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), are regularly being developed.

The benefits of CBT-I have been demonstrated repeatedly and it is recommended as the first line treatment for insomnia by the Clinical Guidelines of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.^17-21 Studies suggest benefits persist long-term, even after completing the therapy sessions, which differ in durability from medication choices.¹⁸

One group that may be particularly suited for treatment with CBT-I is women with insomnia during pregnancy or the postpartum period. In these women, options for treatment may be limited by risk of medication during breastfeeding, as well as difficulty traveling to a physician’s or therapist’s office to receive psychotherapy. However, two recent studies evaluated the use of digital CBT-I to treat insomnia during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, respectively.^22-23

In both studies,the same group of women with insomnia diagnosed during pregnancy were given six weekly 20-minute sessions of digital CBT-I or standard treatment for insomnia, including medication and psychotherapy per their usual provider.

By study end, the pregnant women receiving the CBT-I intervention not only had significantly improved severity of insomnia, they also experienced improved depression and anxiety symptoms, and a decrease in the use of prescription or over-the-counter sleep aides, compared with the standard treatment group, lowering the fetal exposure to medication during pregnancy.²²

In the more recent study, the same group was followed for 6 months post partum.²³ Results were again notable, with the women who received CBT-I reporting significantly less insomnia, as well as significantly lower rates of probable major depression at 3 and 6 months (18% vs. 4%, 10% vs. 0%, respectively.) They also exhibited lower rates of moderate to severe anxiety (17% vs. 4%) at 3 months, compared with those receiving standard care. With as many as one in seven women suffering from postpartum depression, these findings represent a substantial public health benefit.

In summary, insomnia is a critical area of focus for any provider diagnosing and treating psychiatric illness. Attempts to optimize sleep, whether through CBT-I or other psychotherapy approaches, or evidence-based medications dosed for appropriate lengths and at safe doses, should be a part of most, if not all, clinical encounters.

Dr. Reid is a board-certified psychiatrist and award-winning medical educator with a private practice in Philadelphia, as well as a clinical faculty role at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. She attended medical school at Columbia University, New York, and completed her psychiatry residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Reid is a regular contributor to Psychology Today with her blog, “Think Like a Shrink,” and writes and podcasts as The Reflective Doc.

References

1. Voitsidis P et al. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul;289:113076. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113076.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

3. Ford DE and Kamerow DB. JAMA. 1989;262(11):1479-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03430110069030.

4. Ohayon MM and Roth T. J Psychiatr Res. Jan-Feb 2003;37(1):9-15. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3956(02)00052-3.

5. Seow LSE et al. J Ment Health. 2016 Dec;25(6):492-9. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2015.1124390.

6. Thase ME. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 17:28-31; discussion 46-8.

7. Baglioni C et al. J Affect Disord. 2011 Dec;135(1-3):10-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.01.011.

8. Hertenstein E et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2019 Feb;43:96-105. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2018.10.006.

9. Brower KJ et al. Medical Hypotheses. 2010;74(5):928-33. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.020.

10. Laskemoen JF et al. Compr Psychiatry. 2019 May;91:6-12. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.02.006.

11. Kay SR et al. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76. doi: 10.1093/schbul/13.2.261.

12. Hall R. Psychosomatics. May-Jun 1995;36(3):267-75. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8.

13. Perlis ML et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;77(6):e726-33. doi: 10.4088/JCP.15m10131.

14. Morin CM et al. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.610.

15. Cheung J et al. Sleep Med Clin. 2019 Jun;14(2):253-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2019.01.006.

16. Bertisch SM et al. Sleep. 2014 Feb 1. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3410.

17. Okajima I et al. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2010 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8425.2010.00481.x.

18. Trauer JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Aug 4. doi: 10.7326/M14-2841.

19. Edinger J et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.8986.

20. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/for-clinicians.html.

21. National Institutes of Health. Sleep Health. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/education-and-awareness/sleep-health.

22. Felder JN et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(5):484-92. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4491.

23. Felder JN et al. Sleep. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab280.

Insomnia rates continue to rise in the setting of the pandemic,¹ contributing to increasing rates of depression and anxiety, as well as worsening symptoms of other severe mental illnesses. Data suggests this symptom, defined as chronic sleep onset and/or sleep continuity problems associated with impaired daytime functioning, is common in psychiatric illnesses, and can worsen their course.²

The incidence of psychiatric illness in patients with insomnia is estimated at near 50%, with the highest rates found in mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder, as well as anxiety disorders.³ In patients with diagnosed major depressive disorder, insomnia rates can approach 90%.^4-6

Courtesy Dr. Jennifer Reid

Insomnia has been identified as a risk factor for development of mental illness, including doubling the risk of major depressive disorder and tripling the risk of any depressive or anxiety disorder.^7,8 It can also significantly increase the risk of alcohol abuse and psychosis.⁸

Sleep disturbances can worsen symptoms of diagnosed mental illness, including substance abuse, mood and psychotic disorders.^9-10 In one study, nearly 75% of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar spectrum disorder had at least one type of sleep disturbance (insomnia, hypersomnia, or delayed sleep phase).¹⁰ This was almost twice the rate in healthy controls. Importantly, compared with well-rested subjects with mental illness in this study, sleep-disordered participants had higher rates of negative and depressive symptoms on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, as well as significantly lower function via the global assessment of functioning.^11,12

Additional data suggests simply being awake during the night (00:00-05:59) elevates risk of suicide. The mean incident rate of completed suicide in one study was a striking four times the rate noted during daytime hours (06:00-23:59 ) (P < .001).¹³

Although insomnia symptoms can resolve after relief from a particular life stressor, as many as half of patients with more severe symptoms develop a chronic course.¹⁴ This then leads to an extended use of many types of sedative-hypnotics designed and studied primarily for short-term use.¹⁵ In a survey reviewing national use of prescription drugs for insomnia, as many as 20% of individuals use a medication to target insomnia in a given month.¹⁶

Fortunately, despite the many challenges posed by COVID-19, particularly for those with psychiatric illness and limited access to care, telehealth has become more readily available. Additionally, digital versions of evidence-based treatments specifically for sleep problems, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), are regularly being developed.

The benefits of CBT-I have been demonstrated repeatedly and it is recommended as the first line treatment for insomnia by the Clinical Guidelines of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.^17-21 Studies suggest benefits persist long-term, even after completing the therapy sessions, which differ in durability from medication choices.¹⁸

One group that may be particularly suited for treatment with CBT-I is women with insomnia during pregnancy or the postpartum period. In these women, options for treatment may be limited by risk of medication during breastfeeding, as well as difficulty traveling to a physician’s or therapist’s office to receive psychotherapy. However, two recent studies evaluated the use of digital CBT-I to treat insomnia during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, respectively.^22-23

In both studies,the same group of women with insomnia diagnosed during pregnancy were given six weekly 20-minute sessions of digital CBT-I or standard treatment for insomnia, including medication and psychotherapy per their usual provider.

By study end, the pregnant women receiving the CBT-I intervention not only had significantly improved severity of insomnia, they also experienced improved depression and anxiety symptoms, and a decrease in the use of prescription or over-the-counter sleep aides, compared with the standard treatment group, lowering the fetal exposure to medication during pregnancy.²²

In the more recent study, the same group was followed for 6 months post partum.²³ Results were again notable, with the women who received CBT-I reporting significantly less insomnia, as well as significantly lower rates of probable major depression at 3 and 6 months (18% vs. 4%, 10% vs. 0%, respectively.) They also exhibited lower rates of moderate to severe anxiety (17% vs. 4%) at 3 months, compared with those receiving standard care. With as many as one in seven women suffering from postpartum depression, these findings represent a substantial public health benefit.

In summary, insomnia is a critical area of focus for any provider diagnosing and treating psychiatric illness. Attempts to optimize sleep, whether through CBT-I or other psychotherapy approaches, or evidence-based medications dosed for appropriate lengths and at safe doses, should be a part of most, if not all, clinical encounters.

Dr. Reid is a board-certified psychiatrist and award-winning medical educator with a private practice in Philadelphia, as well as a clinical faculty role at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. She attended medical school at Columbia University, New York, and completed her psychiatry residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Reid is a regular contributor to Psychology Today with her blog, “Think Like a Shrink,” and writes and podcasts as The Reflective Doc.

References

1. Voitsidis P et al. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul;289:113076. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113076.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

3. Ford DE and Kamerow DB. JAMA. 1989;262(11):1479-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03430110069030.

4. Ohayon MM and Roth T. J Psychiatr Res. Jan-Feb 2003;37(1):9-15. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3956(02)00052-3.

5. Seow LSE et al. J Ment Health. 2016 Dec;25(6):492-9. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2015.1124390.

6. Thase ME. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 17:28-31; discussion 46-8.

7. Baglioni C et al. J Affect Disord. 2011 Dec;135(1-3):10-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.01.011.

8. Hertenstein E et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2019 Feb;43:96-105. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2018.10.006.

9. Brower KJ et al. Medical Hypotheses. 2010;74(5):928-33. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.020.

10. Laskemoen JF et al. Compr Psychiatry. 2019 May;91:6-12. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.02.006.

11. Kay SR et al. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76. doi: 10.1093/schbul/13.2.261.

12. Hall R. Psychosomatics. May-Jun 1995;36(3):267-75. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8.

13. Perlis ML et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;77(6):e726-33. doi: 10.4088/JCP.15m10131.

14. Morin CM et al. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.610.

15. Cheung J et al. Sleep Med Clin. 2019 Jun;14(2):253-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2019.01.006.

16. Bertisch SM et al. Sleep. 2014 Feb 1. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3410.

17. Okajima I et al. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2010 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8425.2010.00481.x.

18. Trauer JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Aug 4. doi: 10.7326/M14-2841.

19. Edinger J et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.8986.

20. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/for-clinicians.html.

21. National Institutes of Health. Sleep Health. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/education-and-awareness/sleep-health.

22. Felder JN et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(5):484-92. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4491.

23. Felder JN et al. Sleep. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab280.

Insomnia rates continue to rise in the setting of the pandemic,¹ contributing to increasing rates of depression and anxiety, as well as worsening symptoms of other severe mental illnesses. Data suggests this symptom, defined as chronic sleep onset and/or sleep continuity problems associated with impaired daytime functioning, is common in psychiatric illnesses, and can worsen their course.²

The incidence of psychiatric illness in patients with insomnia is estimated at near 50%, with the highest rates found in mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder, as well as anxiety disorders.³ In patients with diagnosed major depressive disorder, insomnia rates can approach 90%.^4-6

Courtesy Dr. Jennifer Reid

Insomnia has been identified as a risk factor for development of mental illness, including doubling the risk of major depressive disorder and tripling the risk of any depressive or anxiety disorder.^7,8 It can also significantly increase the risk of alcohol abuse and psychosis.⁸

Sleep disturbances can worsen symptoms of diagnosed mental illness, including substance abuse, mood and psychotic disorders.^9-10 In one study, nearly 75% of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar spectrum disorder had at least one type of sleep disturbance (insomnia, hypersomnia, or delayed sleep phase).¹⁰ This was almost twice the rate in healthy controls. Importantly, compared with well-rested subjects with mental illness in this study, sleep-disordered participants had higher rates of negative and depressive symptoms on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, as well as significantly lower function via the global assessment of functioning.^11,12

Additional data suggests simply being awake during the night (00:00-05:59) elevates risk of suicide. The mean incident rate of completed suicide in one study was a striking four times the rate noted during daytime hours (06:00-23:59 ) (P < .001).¹³

Although insomnia symptoms can resolve after relief from a particular life stressor, as many as half of patients with more severe symptoms develop a chronic course.¹⁴ This then leads to an extended use of many types of sedative-hypnotics designed and studied primarily for short-term use.¹⁵ In a survey reviewing national use of prescription drugs for insomnia, as many as 20% of individuals use a medication to target insomnia in a given month.¹⁶

Fortunately, despite the many challenges posed by COVID-19, particularly for those with psychiatric illness and limited access to care, telehealth has become more readily available. Additionally, digital versions of evidence-based treatments specifically for sleep problems, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), are regularly being developed.

The benefits of CBT-I have been demonstrated repeatedly and it is recommended as the first line treatment for insomnia by the Clinical Guidelines of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.^17-21 Studies suggest benefits persist long-term, even after completing the therapy sessions, which differ in durability from medication choices.¹⁸

One group that may be particularly suited for treatment with CBT-I is women with insomnia during pregnancy or the postpartum period. In these women, options for treatment may be limited by risk of medication during breastfeeding, as well as difficulty traveling to a physician’s or therapist’s office to receive psychotherapy. However, two recent studies evaluated the use of digital CBT-I to treat insomnia during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, respectively.^22-23

In both studies,the same group of women with insomnia diagnosed during pregnancy were given six weekly 20-minute sessions of digital CBT-I or standard treatment for insomnia, including medication and psychotherapy per their usual provider.

By study end, the pregnant women receiving the CBT-I intervention not only had significantly improved severity of insomnia, they also experienced improved depression and anxiety symptoms, and a decrease in the use of prescription or over-the-counter sleep aides, compared with the standard treatment group, lowering the fetal exposure to medication during pregnancy.²²

In the more recent study, the same group was followed for 6 months post partum.²³ Results were again notable, with the women who received CBT-I reporting significantly less insomnia, as well as significantly lower rates of probable major depression at 3 and 6 months (18% vs. 4%, 10% vs. 0%, respectively.) They also exhibited lower rates of moderate to severe anxiety (17% vs. 4%) at 3 months, compared with those receiving standard care. With as many as one in seven women suffering from postpartum depression, these findings represent a substantial public health benefit.

In summary, insomnia is a critical area of focus for any provider diagnosing and treating psychiatric illness. Attempts to optimize sleep, whether through CBT-I or other psychotherapy approaches, or evidence-based medications dosed for appropriate lengths and at safe doses, should be a part of most, if not all, clinical encounters.

Dr. Reid is a board-certified psychiatrist and award-winning medical educator with a private practice in Philadelphia, as well as a clinical faculty role at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. She attended medical school at Columbia University, New York, and completed her psychiatry residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Reid is a regular contributor to Psychology Today with her blog, “Think Like a Shrink,” and writes and podcasts as The Reflective Doc.

References

1. Voitsidis P et al. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul;289:113076. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113076.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

3. Ford DE and Kamerow DB. JAMA. 1989;262(11):1479-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03430110069030.

4. Ohayon MM and Roth T. J Psychiatr Res. Jan-Feb 2003;37(1):9-15. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3956(02)00052-3.

5. Seow LSE et al. J Ment Health. 2016 Dec;25(6):492-9. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2015.1124390.

6. Thase ME. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 17:28-31; discussion 46-8.

7. Baglioni C et al. J Affect Disord. 2011 Dec;135(1-3):10-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.01.011.

8. Hertenstein E et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2019 Feb;43:96-105. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2018.10.006.

9. Brower KJ et al. Medical Hypotheses. 2010;74(5):928-33. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.020.

10. Laskemoen JF et al. Compr Psychiatry. 2019 May;91:6-12. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.02.006.

11. Kay SR et al. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76. doi: 10.1093/schbul/13.2.261.

12. Hall R. Psychosomatics. May-Jun 1995;36(3):267-75. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8.

13. Perlis ML et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;77(6):e726-33. doi: 10.4088/JCP.15m10131.

14. Morin CM et al. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.610.

15. Cheung J et al. Sleep Med Clin. 2019 Jun;14(2):253-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2019.01.006.

16. Bertisch SM et al. Sleep. 2014 Feb 1. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3410.

17. Okajima I et al. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2010 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8425.2010.00481.x.

18. Trauer JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Aug 4. doi: 10.7326/M14-2841.

19. Edinger J et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.8986.

20. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/for-clinicians.html.

21. National Institutes of Health. Sleep Health. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/education-and-awareness/sleep-health.

22. Felder JN et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(5):484-92. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4491.

23. Felder JN et al. Sleep. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab280.