Federal Practitioner

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center and a report by the National Women’s Law Center, women were earning approximately $0.83-$0.84 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts in 2020. Accordingly, women would need to work an additional 42 days to receive compensation for earnings by men during that year. Moreover, these gaps exist with respect to race inequalities. For example, Black and Latinx women who are working full-time were reported to earn approximately $0.64 and $0.57, respectively, for every $1.00 compared with their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Striking, isn’t it?

The gender pay gap also affects physicians. A 2021 Medscape survey found that male physicians earn 35% more than female physicians. The biggest gap seems to be between male and female specialists, with men earning $376,000 and women $283,000.
 

Gender inequality and COVID-19

In addition to workplace responsibilities, women are more likely to take on unpaid positions in the informal care economy – examples of these tasks include cleaning, grocery shopping, and child care. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the burden of unpaid care work among women, which often incurs a significant impact on their participation in the paid economy.

A study in the United States evaluating the impact of gender inequality during COVID-19 suggested that the rise in unemployment among women during this time may be related to decreased occupational flexibility. Accordingly, the closure of schools and caregiving facilities has translated into increased responsibilities as the informal caregiver, and a decreased ability to fulfill work obligations. Consequently, women may be overwhelmed and unable to maintain their employment status, are limited in their work opportunities, and/or are furloughed or passed over for promotions.
 

Gendered pay gaps affect mental health

A study by Platt and colleagues investigated the relationship between gendered wage gaps and gendered disparities in depression and anxiety disorders. Researchers found that females with a lower income compared with their matched male counterparts were more likely to experience depression and generalized anxiety disorders (i.e., they were 2.4 times more likely to experience depression and 4 times more likely to experience anxiety), while women who earned more than men did not report a significant difference in depression there were reduced gaps in the prevalence of anxiety disorders. As such, it has been suggested that wage gap inequalities are a contributing factor to gendered mental health disparities.

Reduced pay is not only a signifier of reduced returns on human capital. It may also have implications for one’s role in the care economy (e.g., greater time allocation as a result of reduced return), and may result in a higher likelihood for relocation as it relates to a partner’s work, overqualification for a position, inflexible work schedules, and reduced work autonomy.

Wage inequalities may act as a proxy for workplace inequalities such as promotions, prestigious projects, limited upward mobility, and internalized negative workplace experiences, all of which may contribute to increased sleep loss, stress, and related mental health stressors.

One might say, “A few cents, so what?” In addition to income itself, there’s a broader theme at play, which is gender discrimination and inequality. We should encourage conversations around the gender pay gap and develop strategies to combat this economic and social disparity.
 

Ms. Lui completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate. She has received income from Braxia Scientific Corp. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center and a report by the National Women’s Law Center, women were earning approximately $0.83-$0.84 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts in 2020. Accordingly, women would need to work an additional 42 days to receive compensation for earnings by men during that year. Moreover, these gaps exist with respect to race inequalities. For example, Black and Latinx women who are working full-time were reported to earn approximately $0.64 and $0.57, respectively, for every $1.00 compared with their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Striking, isn’t it?

The gender pay gap also affects physicians. A 2021 Medscape survey found that male physicians earn 35% more than female physicians. The biggest gap seems to be between male and female specialists, with men earning $376,000 and women $283,000.
 

Gender inequality and COVID-19

In addition to workplace responsibilities, women are more likely to take on unpaid positions in the informal care economy – examples of these tasks include cleaning, grocery shopping, and child care. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the burden of unpaid care work among women, which often incurs a significant impact on their participation in the paid economy.

A study in the United States evaluating the impact of gender inequality during COVID-19 suggested that the rise in unemployment among women during this time may be related to decreased occupational flexibility. Accordingly, the closure of schools and caregiving facilities has translated into increased responsibilities as the informal caregiver, and a decreased ability to fulfill work obligations. Consequently, women may be overwhelmed and unable to maintain their employment status, are limited in their work opportunities, and/or are furloughed or passed over for promotions.
 

Gendered pay gaps affect mental health

A study by Platt and colleagues investigated the relationship between gendered wage gaps and gendered disparities in depression and anxiety disorders. Researchers found that females with a lower income compared with their matched male counterparts were more likely to experience depression and generalized anxiety disorders (i.e., they were 2.4 times more likely to experience depression and 4 times more likely to experience anxiety), while women who earned more than men did not report a significant difference in depression there were reduced gaps in the prevalence of anxiety disorders. As such, it has been suggested that wage gap inequalities are a contributing factor to gendered mental health disparities.

Reduced pay is not only a signifier of reduced returns on human capital. It may also have implications for one’s role in the care economy (e.g., greater time allocation as a result of reduced return), and may result in a higher likelihood for relocation as it relates to a partner’s work, overqualification for a position, inflexible work schedules, and reduced work autonomy.

Wage inequalities may act as a proxy for workplace inequalities such as promotions, prestigious projects, limited upward mobility, and internalized negative workplace experiences, all of which may contribute to increased sleep loss, stress, and related mental health stressors.

One might say, “A few cents, so what?” In addition to income itself, there’s a broader theme at play, which is gender discrimination and inequality. We should encourage conversations around the gender pay gap and develop strategies to combat this economic and social disparity.
 

Ms. Lui completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate. She has received income from Braxia Scientific Corp. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center and a report by the National Women’s Law Center, women were earning approximately $0.83-$0.84 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts in 2020. Accordingly, women would need to work an additional 42 days to receive compensation for earnings by men during that year. Moreover, these gaps exist with respect to race inequalities. For example, Black and Latinx women who are working full-time were reported to earn approximately $0.64 and $0.57, respectively, for every $1.00 compared with their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Striking, isn’t it?

The gender pay gap also affects physicians. A 2021 Medscape survey found that male physicians earn 35% more than female physicians. The biggest gap seems to be between male and female specialists, with men earning $376,000 and women $283,000.
 

Gender inequality and COVID-19

In addition to workplace responsibilities, women are more likely to take on unpaid positions in the informal care economy – examples of these tasks include cleaning, grocery shopping, and child care. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the burden of unpaid care work among women, which often incurs a significant impact on their participation in the paid economy.

A study in the United States evaluating the impact of gender inequality during COVID-19 suggested that the rise in unemployment among women during this time may be related to decreased occupational flexibility. Accordingly, the closure of schools and caregiving facilities has translated into increased responsibilities as the informal caregiver, and a decreased ability to fulfill work obligations. Consequently, women may be overwhelmed and unable to maintain their employment status, are limited in their work opportunities, and/or are furloughed or passed over for promotions.
 

Gendered pay gaps affect mental health

A study by Platt and colleagues investigated the relationship between gendered wage gaps and gendered disparities in depression and anxiety disorders. Researchers found that females with a lower income compared with their matched male counterparts were more likely to experience depression and generalized anxiety disorders (i.e., they were 2.4 times more likely to experience depression and 4 times more likely to experience anxiety), while women who earned more than men did not report a significant difference in depression there were reduced gaps in the prevalence of anxiety disorders. As such, it has been suggested that wage gap inequalities are a contributing factor to gendered mental health disparities.

Reduced pay is not only a signifier of reduced returns on human capital. It may also have implications for one’s role in the care economy (e.g., greater time allocation as a result of reduced return), and may result in a higher likelihood for relocation as it relates to a partner’s work, overqualification for a position, inflexible work schedules, and reduced work autonomy.

Wage inequalities may act as a proxy for workplace inequalities such as promotions, prestigious projects, limited upward mobility, and internalized negative workplace experiences, all of which may contribute to increased sleep loss, stress, and related mental health stressors.

One might say, “A few cents, so what?” In addition to income itself, there’s a broader theme at play, which is gender discrimination and inequality. We should encourage conversations around the gender pay gap and develop strategies to combat this economic and social disparity.
 

Ms. Lui completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate. She has received income from Braxia Scientific Corp. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Going to bed later than usual and/or getting a poor night’s sleep are both associated with impaired glycemic response to breakfast the following morning in healthy adults, according to a multiple test-meal challenge study conducted over 14 days.

“Our data suggest that sleep duration, efficiency, and midpoint are important determinants of postprandial glycemic control at a population level,” Neil Tsereteli, MD, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 30, 2021, in Diabetologia.

“And [the results] suggest that one-size-fits-all sleep recommendations are suboptimal, particularly in the context of postprandial glycemic control, a key component of diabetes prevention,” they added.
 

Prior research on sleep quality and control of glucose lacking

Diet, exercise, and sleep are fundamental components of a healthy lifestyle; however, the role that sleep plays in affecting blood glucose control in generally healthy people has been studied little so far, the researchers wrote.

Sleep disorders can act as a measure of general health as they often occur alongside other health problems. Sleep quality also has a direct causal effect on many conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. And disturbed sleep caused by conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and risk of associated complications.

This and other evidence suggest a strong link between glucose regulation and the quality and duration of sleep.

Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues set out to examine this further in the Personalized Responses to Dietary Composition Trial 1, which involved 953 healthy adults who consumed standardized meals over 2 weeks in a clinic setting and at home.

“The meals were consumed either for breakfast or lunch in a randomized meal order and consisted of eight different standardized meals,”  the researchers wrote.

Activity and sleep were monitored using a wearable device with an accelerometer. Postprandial blood glucose levels were measured using a continuous glucose monitor.

Sleep variables including quality, duration, and timing and their impact on glycemic response to breakfast the following morning, and were compared between participants and within each individual.
 

Better sleep efficiency, better glucose control

The study found that, although there was no significant association between length of sleep period and postmeal glycemic response, there was a significant interaction when the nutritional content of the breakfast meal was also considered.

Longer sleep periods were associated with lower blood glucose following high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts, indicating better blood glucose control.

Additionally, the researchers observed a within-person effect in which a study participant who slept for longer than they typically would was likely to have reduced postprandial blood glucose following a high-carbohydrate or high-fat breakfast the next day.

The authors also found a significant link between sleep efficiency (ratio of time asleep to total length of sleep period) and glycemic control. When a participant slept more efficiently than usual, their postprandial blood glucose also tended to be lower than usual.

“This effect was largely driven by sleep onset (going to bed later) rather than sleep offset (waking up later),” Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues noted.
 

Sleep a key pillar of health

Asked whether these particular sleep effects might be exacerbated in patients with diabetes, senior author Paul Franks, MD, also from the Lund University Diabetes Centre, felt they could not meaningfully extrapolate results to people with diabetes, given that many take glucose-lowering medications.

“However, it is likely that these results would be similar or exacerbated in people with prediabetes, as glucose fluctuations in this subgroup of patients are generally greater than in people with normoglycemia,” he noted in an interview.

“Sleep is a key pillar of health, and focusing on both sleep and diet is key for healthy blood glucose control,” he added.

“Compensating for a bad night’s sleep by consuming a very sugary breakfast or energy drinks is likely to be especially detrimental for blood glucose control,” Dr. Franks said.

The study was funded by Lund University. Dr. Tsereteli and Dr. Franks reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Going to bed later than usual and/or getting a poor night’s sleep are both associated with impaired glycemic response to breakfast the following morning in healthy adults, according to a multiple test-meal challenge study conducted over 14 days.

“Our data suggest that sleep duration, efficiency, and midpoint are important determinants of postprandial glycemic control at a population level,” Neil Tsereteli, MD, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 30, 2021, in Diabetologia.

“And [the results] suggest that one-size-fits-all sleep recommendations are suboptimal, particularly in the context of postprandial glycemic control, a key component of diabetes prevention,” they added.
 

Prior research on sleep quality and control of glucose lacking

Diet, exercise, and sleep are fundamental components of a healthy lifestyle; however, the role that sleep plays in affecting blood glucose control in generally healthy people has been studied little so far, the researchers wrote.

Sleep disorders can act as a measure of general health as they often occur alongside other health problems. Sleep quality also has a direct causal effect on many conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. And disturbed sleep caused by conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and risk of associated complications.

This and other evidence suggest a strong link between glucose regulation and the quality and duration of sleep.

Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues set out to examine this further in the Personalized Responses to Dietary Composition Trial 1, which involved 953 healthy adults who consumed standardized meals over 2 weeks in a clinic setting and at home.

“The meals were consumed either for breakfast or lunch in a randomized meal order and consisted of eight different standardized meals,”  the researchers wrote.

Activity and sleep were monitored using a wearable device with an accelerometer. Postprandial blood glucose levels were measured using a continuous glucose monitor.

Sleep variables including quality, duration, and timing and their impact on glycemic response to breakfast the following morning, and were compared between participants and within each individual.
 

Better sleep efficiency, better glucose control

The study found that, although there was no significant association between length of sleep period and postmeal glycemic response, there was a significant interaction when the nutritional content of the breakfast meal was also considered.

Longer sleep periods were associated with lower blood glucose following high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts, indicating better blood glucose control.

Additionally, the researchers observed a within-person effect in which a study participant who slept for longer than they typically would was likely to have reduced postprandial blood glucose following a high-carbohydrate or high-fat breakfast the next day.

The authors also found a significant link between sleep efficiency (ratio of time asleep to total length of sleep period) and glycemic control. When a participant slept more efficiently than usual, their postprandial blood glucose also tended to be lower than usual.

“This effect was largely driven by sleep onset (going to bed later) rather than sleep offset (waking up later),” Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues noted.
 

Sleep a key pillar of health

Asked whether these particular sleep effects might be exacerbated in patients with diabetes, senior author Paul Franks, MD, also from the Lund University Diabetes Centre, felt they could not meaningfully extrapolate results to people with diabetes, given that many take glucose-lowering medications.

“However, it is likely that these results would be similar or exacerbated in people with prediabetes, as glucose fluctuations in this subgroup of patients are generally greater than in people with normoglycemia,” he noted in an interview.

“Sleep is a key pillar of health, and focusing on both sleep and diet is key for healthy blood glucose control,” he added.

“Compensating for a bad night’s sleep by consuming a very sugary breakfast or energy drinks is likely to be especially detrimental for blood glucose control,” Dr. Franks said.

The study was funded by Lund University. Dr. Tsereteli and Dr. Franks reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Going to bed later than usual and/or getting a poor night’s sleep are both associated with impaired glycemic response to breakfast the following morning in healthy adults, according to a multiple test-meal challenge study conducted over 14 days.

“Our data suggest that sleep duration, efficiency, and midpoint are important determinants of postprandial glycemic control at a population level,” Neil Tsereteli, MD, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 30, 2021, in Diabetologia.

“And [the results] suggest that one-size-fits-all sleep recommendations are suboptimal, particularly in the context of postprandial glycemic control, a key component of diabetes prevention,” they added.
 

Prior research on sleep quality and control of glucose lacking

Diet, exercise, and sleep are fundamental components of a healthy lifestyle; however, the role that sleep plays in affecting blood glucose control in generally healthy people has been studied little so far, the researchers wrote.

Sleep disorders can act as a measure of general health as they often occur alongside other health problems. Sleep quality also has a direct causal effect on many conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. And disturbed sleep caused by conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and risk of associated complications.

This and other evidence suggest a strong link between glucose regulation and the quality and duration of sleep.

Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues set out to examine this further in the Personalized Responses to Dietary Composition Trial 1, which involved 953 healthy adults who consumed standardized meals over 2 weeks in a clinic setting and at home.

“The meals were consumed either for breakfast or lunch in a randomized meal order and consisted of eight different standardized meals,”  the researchers wrote.

Activity and sleep were monitored using a wearable device with an accelerometer. Postprandial blood glucose levels were measured using a continuous glucose monitor.

Sleep variables including quality, duration, and timing and their impact on glycemic response to breakfast the following morning, and were compared between participants and within each individual.
 

Better sleep efficiency, better glucose control

The study found that, although there was no significant association between length of sleep period and postmeal glycemic response, there was a significant interaction when the nutritional content of the breakfast meal was also considered.

Longer sleep periods were associated with lower blood glucose following high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts, indicating better blood glucose control.

Additionally, the researchers observed a within-person effect in which a study participant who slept for longer than they typically would was likely to have reduced postprandial blood glucose following a high-carbohydrate or high-fat breakfast the next day.

The authors also found a significant link between sleep efficiency (ratio of time asleep to total length of sleep period) and glycemic control. When a participant slept more efficiently than usual, their postprandial blood glucose also tended to be lower than usual.

“This effect was largely driven by sleep onset (going to bed later) rather than sleep offset (waking up later),” Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues noted.
 

Sleep a key pillar of health

Asked whether these particular sleep effects might be exacerbated in patients with diabetes, senior author Paul Franks, MD, also from the Lund University Diabetes Centre, felt they could not meaningfully extrapolate results to people with diabetes, given that many take glucose-lowering medications.

“However, it is likely that these results would be similar or exacerbated in people with prediabetes, as glucose fluctuations in this subgroup of patients are generally greater than in people with normoglycemia,” he noted in an interview.

“Sleep is a key pillar of health, and focusing on both sleep and diet is key for healthy blood glucose control,” he added.

“Compensating for a bad night’s sleep by consuming a very sugary breakfast or energy drinks is likely to be especially detrimental for blood glucose control,” Dr. Franks said.

The study was funded by Lund University. Dr. Tsereteli and Dr. Franks reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Working feverishly to complete the myriad patient notes accumulated throughout a hectic day, my phone vibrated – alerting me to a number that, over the past several years, has wrought uncertainty, grief, and overwhelming relief. Answering hesitantly, I listened to my physician’s pharmacist inform me of unexpected and alarming news.

Since COVID-19 was first identified more than 1 year ago, more than 770,000 people have died in the United States. In the wake of those losses, countless grieve while attempting to navigate a future without their loved ones. Meanwhile, scientists worked feverishly to combat a pandemic relentless in contagion. As health care professionals, we work tirelessly against the sharpened scythe of death, toiling day after day without an identifiable end. All the while, advocacy has prevailed as the need for personal protective equipment, improved ventilation systems, sanitization measures, and other mitigation measures, such as mask wearing and social distancing, echoed swiftly across the nation and around the world.

But, as the months have progressed, and life has seemingly transitioned toward a parallel version of reality, subsections of communities have grown restless. Several nontherapeutic, ineffective, and falsely touted regimens have been promoted. Amid the chaos of misinformation, most medical professionals have sought support from respected journals and infectious disease experts to filter out jargon and piece together scientifically sound protocols. Although many lives have prevailed by way of those advancements, mixed messages about interventions have emerged – and in many quarters across the country, anger, resistance, and outright refusal have prevailed.

Yet, we – the medical community – have forged ever onward as the cases continued and the death toll steadily climbed. In many cases, physicians who are years removed from critical care training have been thrust into COVID units, while residents have shifted toward working outside of their chosen specialty. Outpatient offices have closed, salaries have been cut, and furloughs have loomed as days fade into months. Beset with exhaustion and uncertainty, sacrifice has become a common thread that intrinsically united us against an unrelenting foe.

Most people continued navigating the many changes and made concerted efforts to mimic our prepandemic lives. Working from home in makeshift offices, dusting off math skills to assist children through the doldrums of distance learning, and mastering various audiovisual platforms, we reinforced social bonds and forged new connections echoing the hallmark resilience reminiscent of our shared distant ancestry.

As of this writing, thanks to our work – and that of scientists and policy makers – about 69% of Americans have received at least one dose of vaccine, and vaccines are widely available to children 5 and older. But it has been disheartening to watch misinformation about vaccine research and development propagated by political figures, social media, and lay people.
 

Processing the phone call

While listening to my physician’s pharmacist, I slowed my breaths in an effort to find calm. Years of navigating the American health care industry had left me both equipped and ill-prepared for the unexpected. I listened intently to the pharmacist’s words while staring blankly at a computer screen – uncertain of what had felt so assured not 10 minutes earlier.

That’s when I got the news. The intravenous medication that aided in my stabilization had suffered a critical shortage because of its successful use in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia – patients who, in a majority of cases, had likely refused the vaccines. As result, the medication that had enabled my return to work, active engagement in nonwork pursuits, and most importantly, equipped my body to thrive despite the damage it had suffered, suddenly vanished.

Gently placing my phone on the desk, my heart beat rapidly as tears steadily streamed down my face. Staring blankly ahead, my hands gradually balled into fists as I let out a sound of fear, agony, and uncertainty. Screaming at everything and nothing, nausea swelled as panic flooded my body. In that moment, I ruminated on the conversation with the pharmacist. There had been no discussion, no option for me to maintain accessibility to this valuable medicine. Consequently, I felt helpless. Although the same medication, albeit a different mechanism of delivery, was promptly chosen as an adequate substitute, there was no guarantee of it bestowing the same degree of efficacy. So I was terrified, envisioning the progress made over several years as plummeting into an abyss of pain and despair. What are those of us who have chosen medicine as our profession but are immunocompromised expected to make of this?

Over the next several weeks, I diligently adhered to the new regimen and focused on positive mentation. Nevertheless, day by day, the symptoms worsened; eventually, I became bed ridden. I tried to gather what little composure remained to reschedule patients and justify the resounding guilt of perceived failure. I remember the sweet and gentle look of my child as I once again could not summon the strength to play pretend. This felt overwhelming. Would I ever go back to work? Would I see my child grow? No amount of pleading or screaming would change the fact that a medical system chose to roll the dice on my health. In a haze of discomfort and betrayal, I wondered how a physician or medical facility could justify removing medication from someone reliant upon it. How do we choose the appropriate allocation of resources when the consequences are potentially catastrophic?
 

Searching for context

When a country is founded on the mission of rising as a leading world power built upon the concepts of freedom, basic human rights, and individuality while supporting an infrastructure of capitalism, power, and control, crises – particularly those related to public health – can fan deep divisions. Here in the United States, we have seen misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and bitter indignation fuel the flames of provocation as protests of mask mandates, distance learning, and social distancing were touted as violating the very core upon which the country was established. Frustration, palpable among health care professionals, grew ever greater as the importance of vaccination in quelling virus mutations and decreasing morbidity and mortality were openly disparaged and ignored.

Not only have we watched people refuse the vaccines, but some are ignoring other mitigation measures. So the question becomes: How are we, as health care professionals trying to maintain a therapeutic alliance with those who reject lifesaving practices, expected to process this? Sitting in appointments and attempting interventions without judgment feels impractical and nearly impossible – particularly when the behaviors of these patients have the potential of violating our own health and well-being. How do we remain altruistic in our endeavors when those who seek our care seem callously indifferent to our lives – and to those of our families?
 

Measuring the value of life

Within the fevered haze of this past year, many stories highlighting grim realities have captured the media spotlight. From individuals unable to have emergency evaluations because of facilities being inundated by COVID-19 patients to individuals prematurely discharged, hospital bed shortages, and financial pressures from insurance companies. In reciting the phrase “Primum non noncere,” we physicians are committing to providing fair and competent medical treatment. At times, urgent decisions are necessary but are always made in the best interest of the patient(s). Ultimately, I am left debating how these agonizing weeks served any meaningful purpose. Moreover, when choosing the many over the few, what are the determinant factors? I am left asking: What is the value of a life?

Philosophically, this ethical dilemma is captured succinctly via the “trolley problem,” formulated in 1967 by Philippa Foot, MD. This is how Dr. Foot’s formulation unfolds: Close your eyes, and imagine you are inside a trolley careening unhindered down the rumbling tracks. Straight ahead you see five people bound to the tracks in imminent danger of being struck, and on the other side, one person is tied to the tracks. Do you continue the same course – thereby condemning five innocent people to death – or do you make the active decision to switch tracks, therefore consigning the one to their fate? Envision the people what do they look like? How old are they? If the one were a small child or a close friend, would that alter your decision? How does one make such a harrowing choice knowing the irreversible consequences? Depending on your action, this quandary falls within two primary schools of thought: Utilitarianism, which posits that the best action is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontologicalism, which suggests that action is inherently right or wrong regardless of the consequences. Therefore, the decision to save the five is not favored.

However simplistic those scenarios may read, such principles when viewed through different lenses, they form the basis of medical ethics. In effect, every acute decision, every aspect of treatment is predicated upon the principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility, distributive justice, and autonomy. Yet, the manner in which they are applied is highly contingent upon myriad variables. For example, sociopolitical factors, including population size (rural versus urban), economics (impoverished versus wealthy), as well as demographic factors (age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) can highly influence and sometimes unknowingly influence interpretation and allocation of health care resources. This dilemma does not yield easily applicable and universal solutions. Nevertheless, it is paramount to evaluate policies effectively and tediously, particularly those with detrimental ramifications. Likewise, remaining flexible in our willingness to explore alternative solutions and encourage open discord among those with opposing viewpoints is key to instituting individual or institutional change that values the one as it values the many.

After several weeks of acute illness and a variety of short-acting interventions, I received approval to resume intravenous therapy. While the saga has ultimately reached a satisfactory conclusion, I am left with stupefied disbelief toward the people who took a gamble on my health. I am facing a battle between understanding the obligation of medicine to provide ethical and reasonable care without hesitation or judgment versus embittered resentment when faced with those who openly campaign against lifesaving interventions, such as the COVID-19 vaccine. For me, each day and the one that follows is riddled with complicated emotion. Every time I prematurely cease activity out of discomfort and weariness, I worry about my increasingly foreboding workload. In those moments, in that place of questions without answers, I remember that someone somewhere ultimately decided to switch the trolley’s track.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Working feverishly to complete the myriad patient notes accumulated throughout a hectic day, my phone vibrated – alerting me to a number that, over the past several years, has wrought uncertainty, grief, and overwhelming relief. Answering hesitantly, I listened to my physician’s pharmacist inform me of unexpected and alarming news.

Since COVID-19 was first identified more than 1 year ago, more than 770,000 people have died in the United States. In the wake of those losses, countless grieve while attempting to navigate a future without their loved ones. Meanwhile, scientists worked feverishly to combat a pandemic relentless in contagion. As health care professionals, we work tirelessly against the sharpened scythe of death, toiling day after day without an identifiable end. All the while, advocacy has prevailed as the need for personal protective equipment, improved ventilation systems, sanitization measures, and other mitigation measures, such as mask wearing and social distancing, echoed swiftly across the nation and around the world.

But, as the months have progressed, and life has seemingly transitioned toward a parallel version of reality, subsections of communities have grown restless. Several nontherapeutic, ineffective, and falsely touted regimens have been promoted. Amid the chaos of misinformation, most medical professionals have sought support from respected journals and infectious disease experts to filter out jargon and piece together scientifically sound protocols. Although many lives have prevailed by way of those advancements, mixed messages about interventions have emerged – and in many quarters across the country, anger, resistance, and outright refusal have prevailed.

Yet, we – the medical community – have forged ever onward as the cases continued and the death toll steadily climbed. In many cases, physicians who are years removed from critical care training have been thrust into COVID units, while residents have shifted toward working outside of their chosen specialty. Outpatient offices have closed, salaries have been cut, and furloughs have loomed as days fade into months. Beset with exhaustion and uncertainty, sacrifice has become a common thread that intrinsically united us against an unrelenting foe.

Most people continued navigating the many changes and made concerted efforts to mimic our prepandemic lives. Working from home in makeshift offices, dusting off math skills to assist children through the doldrums of distance learning, and mastering various audiovisual platforms, we reinforced social bonds and forged new connections echoing the hallmark resilience reminiscent of our shared distant ancestry.

As of this writing, thanks to our work – and that of scientists and policy makers – about 69% of Americans have received at least one dose of vaccine, and vaccines are widely available to children 5 and older. But it has been disheartening to watch misinformation about vaccine research and development propagated by political figures, social media, and lay people.
 

Processing the phone call

While listening to my physician’s pharmacist, I slowed my breaths in an effort to find calm. Years of navigating the American health care industry had left me both equipped and ill-prepared for the unexpected. I listened intently to the pharmacist’s words while staring blankly at a computer screen – uncertain of what had felt so assured not 10 minutes earlier.

That’s when I got the news. The intravenous medication that aided in my stabilization had suffered a critical shortage because of its successful use in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia – patients who, in a majority of cases, had likely refused the vaccines. As result, the medication that had enabled my return to work, active engagement in nonwork pursuits, and most importantly, equipped my body to thrive despite the damage it had suffered, suddenly vanished.

Gently placing my phone on the desk, my heart beat rapidly as tears steadily streamed down my face. Staring blankly ahead, my hands gradually balled into fists as I let out a sound of fear, agony, and uncertainty. Screaming at everything and nothing, nausea swelled as panic flooded my body. In that moment, I ruminated on the conversation with the pharmacist. There had been no discussion, no option for me to maintain accessibility to this valuable medicine. Consequently, I felt helpless. Although the same medication, albeit a different mechanism of delivery, was promptly chosen as an adequate substitute, there was no guarantee of it bestowing the same degree of efficacy. So I was terrified, envisioning the progress made over several years as plummeting into an abyss of pain and despair. What are those of us who have chosen medicine as our profession but are immunocompromised expected to make of this?

Over the next several weeks, I diligently adhered to the new regimen and focused on positive mentation. Nevertheless, day by day, the symptoms worsened; eventually, I became bed ridden. I tried to gather what little composure remained to reschedule patients and justify the resounding guilt of perceived failure. I remember the sweet and gentle look of my child as I once again could not summon the strength to play pretend. This felt overwhelming. Would I ever go back to work? Would I see my child grow? No amount of pleading or screaming would change the fact that a medical system chose to roll the dice on my health. In a haze of discomfort and betrayal, I wondered how a physician or medical facility could justify removing medication from someone reliant upon it. How do we choose the appropriate allocation of resources when the consequences are potentially catastrophic?
 

Searching for context

When a country is founded on the mission of rising as a leading world power built upon the concepts of freedom, basic human rights, and individuality while supporting an infrastructure of capitalism, power, and control, crises – particularly those related to public health – can fan deep divisions. Here in the United States, we have seen misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and bitter indignation fuel the flames of provocation as protests of mask mandates, distance learning, and social distancing were touted as violating the very core upon which the country was established. Frustration, palpable among health care professionals, grew ever greater as the importance of vaccination in quelling virus mutations and decreasing morbidity and mortality were openly disparaged and ignored.

Not only have we watched people refuse the vaccines, but some are ignoring other mitigation measures. So the question becomes: How are we, as health care professionals trying to maintain a therapeutic alliance with those who reject lifesaving practices, expected to process this? Sitting in appointments and attempting interventions without judgment feels impractical and nearly impossible – particularly when the behaviors of these patients have the potential of violating our own health and well-being. How do we remain altruistic in our endeavors when those who seek our care seem callously indifferent to our lives – and to those of our families?
 

Measuring the value of life

Within the fevered haze of this past year, many stories highlighting grim realities have captured the media spotlight. From individuals unable to have emergency evaluations because of facilities being inundated by COVID-19 patients to individuals prematurely discharged, hospital bed shortages, and financial pressures from insurance companies. In reciting the phrase “Primum non noncere,” we physicians are committing to providing fair and competent medical treatment. At times, urgent decisions are necessary but are always made in the best interest of the patient(s). Ultimately, I am left debating how these agonizing weeks served any meaningful purpose. Moreover, when choosing the many over the few, what are the determinant factors? I am left asking: What is the value of a life?

Philosophically, this ethical dilemma is captured succinctly via the “trolley problem,” formulated in 1967 by Philippa Foot, MD. This is how Dr. Foot’s formulation unfolds: Close your eyes, and imagine you are inside a trolley careening unhindered down the rumbling tracks. Straight ahead you see five people bound to the tracks in imminent danger of being struck, and on the other side, one person is tied to the tracks. Do you continue the same course – thereby condemning five innocent people to death – or do you make the active decision to switch tracks, therefore consigning the one to their fate? Envision the people what do they look like? How old are they? If the one were a small child or a close friend, would that alter your decision? How does one make such a harrowing choice knowing the irreversible consequences? Depending on your action, this quandary falls within two primary schools of thought: Utilitarianism, which posits that the best action is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontologicalism, which suggests that action is inherently right or wrong regardless of the consequences. Therefore, the decision to save the five is not favored.

However simplistic those scenarios may read, such principles when viewed through different lenses, they form the basis of medical ethics. In effect, every acute decision, every aspect of treatment is predicated upon the principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility, distributive justice, and autonomy. Yet, the manner in which they are applied is highly contingent upon myriad variables. For example, sociopolitical factors, including population size (rural versus urban), economics (impoverished versus wealthy), as well as demographic factors (age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) can highly influence and sometimes unknowingly influence interpretation and allocation of health care resources. This dilemma does not yield easily applicable and universal solutions. Nevertheless, it is paramount to evaluate policies effectively and tediously, particularly those with detrimental ramifications. Likewise, remaining flexible in our willingness to explore alternative solutions and encourage open discord among those with opposing viewpoints is key to instituting individual or institutional change that values the one as it values the many.

After several weeks of acute illness and a variety of short-acting interventions, I received approval to resume intravenous therapy. While the saga has ultimately reached a satisfactory conclusion, I am left with stupefied disbelief toward the people who took a gamble on my health. I am facing a battle between understanding the obligation of medicine to provide ethical and reasonable care without hesitation or judgment versus embittered resentment when faced with those who openly campaign against lifesaving interventions, such as the COVID-19 vaccine. For me, each day and the one that follows is riddled with complicated emotion. Every time I prematurely cease activity out of discomfort and weariness, I worry about my increasingly foreboding workload. In those moments, in that place of questions without answers, I remember that someone somewhere ultimately decided to switch the trolley’s track.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Working feverishly to complete the myriad patient notes accumulated throughout a hectic day, my phone vibrated – alerting me to a number that, over the past several years, has wrought uncertainty, grief, and overwhelming relief. Answering hesitantly, I listened to my physician’s pharmacist inform me of unexpected and alarming news.

Since COVID-19 was first identified more than 1 year ago, more than 770,000 people have died in the United States. In the wake of those losses, countless grieve while attempting to navigate a future without their loved ones. Meanwhile, scientists worked feverishly to combat a pandemic relentless in contagion. As health care professionals, we work tirelessly against the sharpened scythe of death, toiling day after day without an identifiable end. All the while, advocacy has prevailed as the need for personal protective equipment, improved ventilation systems, sanitization measures, and other mitigation measures, such as mask wearing and social distancing, echoed swiftly across the nation and around the world.

But, as the months have progressed, and life has seemingly transitioned toward a parallel version of reality, subsections of communities have grown restless. Several nontherapeutic, ineffective, and falsely touted regimens have been promoted. Amid the chaos of misinformation, most medical professionals have sought support from respected journals and infectious disease experts to filter out jargon and piece together scientifically sound protocols. Although many lives have prevailed by way of those advancements, mixed messages about interventions have emerged – and in many quarters across the country, anger, resistance, and outright refusal have prevailed.

Yet, we – the medical community – have forged ever onward as the cases continued and the death toll steadily climbed. In many cases, physicians who are years removed from critical care training have been thrust into COVID units, while residents have shifted toward working outside of their chosen specialty. Outpatient offices have closed, salaries have been cut, and furloughs have loomed as days fade into months. Beset with exhaustion and uncertainty, sacrifice has become a common thread that intrinsically united us against an unrelenting foe.

Most people continued navigating the many changes and made concerted efforts to mimic our prepandemic lives. Working from home in makeshift offices, dusting off math skills to assist children through the doldrums of distance learning, and mastering various audiovisual platforms, we reinforced social bonds and forged new connections echoing the hallmark resilience reminiscent of our shared distant ancestry.

As of this writing, thanks to our work – and that of scientists and policy makers – about 69% of Americans have received at least one dose of vaccine, and vaccines are widely available to children 5 and older. But it has been disheartening to watch misinformation about vaccine research and development propagated by political figures, social media, and lay people.
 

Processing the phone call

While listening to my physician’s pharmacist, I slowed my breaths in an effort to find calm. Years of navigating the American health care industry had left me both equipped and ill-prepared for the unexpected. I listened intently to the pharmacist’s words while staring blankly at a computer screen – uncertain of what had felt so assured not 10 minutes earlier.

That’s when I got the news. The intravenous medication that aided in my stabilization had suffered a critical shortage because of its successful use in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia – patients who, in a majority of cases, had likely refused the vaccines. As result, the medication that had enabled my return to work, active engagement in nonwork pursuits, and most importantly, equipped my body to thrive despite the damage it had suffered, suddenly vanished.

Gently placing my phone on the desk, my heart beat rapidly as tears steadily streamed down my face. Staring blankly ahead, my hands gradually balled into fists as I let out a sound of fear, agony, and uncertainty. Screaming at everything and nothing, nausea swelled as panic flooded my body. In that moment, I ruminated on the conversation with the pharmacist. There had been no discussion, no option for me to maintain accessibility to this valuable medicine. Consequently, I felt helpless. Although the same medication, albeit a different mechanism of delivery, was promptly chosen as an adequate substitute, there was no guarantee of it bestowing the same degree of efficacy. So I was terrified, envisioning the progress made over several years as plummeting into an abyss of pain and despair. What are those of us who have chosen medicine as our profession but are immunocompromised expected to make of this?

Over the next several weeks, I diligently adhered to the new regimen and focused on positive mentation. Nevertheless, day by day, the symptoms worsened; eventually, I became bed ridden. I tried to gather what little composure remained to reschedule patients and justify the resounding guilt of perceived failure. I remember the sweet and gentle look of my child as I once again could not summon the strength to play pretend. This felt overwhelming. Would I ever go back to work? Would I see my child grow? No amount of pleading or screaming would change the fact that a medical system chose to roll the dice on my health. In a haze of discomfort and betrayal, I wondered how a physician or medical facility could justify removing medication from someone reliant upon it. How do we choose the appropriate allocation of resources when the consequences are potentially catastrophic?
 

Searching for context

When a country is founded on the mission of rising as a leading world power built upon the concepts of freedom, basic human rights, and individuality while supporting an infrastructure of capitalism, power, and control, crises – particularly those related to public health – can fan deep divisions. Here in the United States, we have seen misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and bitter indignation fuel the flames of provocation as protests of mask mandates, distance learning, and social distancing were touted as violating the very core upon which the country was established. Frustration, palpable among health care professionals, grew ever greater as the importance of vaccination in quelling virus mutations and decreasing morbidity and mortality were openly disparaged and ignored.

Not only have we watched people refuse the vaccines, but some are ignoring other mitigation measures. So the question becomes: How are we, as health care professionals trying to maintain a therapeutic alliance with those who reject lifesaving practices, expected to process this? Sitting in appointments and attempting interventions without judgment feels impractical and nearly impossible – particularly when the behaviors of these patients have the potential of violating our own health and well-being. How do we remain altruistic in our endeavors when those who seek our care seem callously indifferent to our lives – and to those of our families?
 

Measuring the value of life

Within the fevered haze of this past year, many stories highlighting grim realities have captured the media spotlight. From individuals unable to have emergency evaluations because of facilities being inundated by COVID-19 patients to individuals prematurely discharged, hospital bed shortages, and financial pressures from insurance companies. In reciting the phrase “Primum non noncere,” we physicians are committing to providing fair and competent medical treatment. At times, urgent decisions are necessary but are always made in the best interest of the patient(s). Ultimately, I am left debating how these agonizing weeks served any meaningful purpose. Moreover, when choosing the many over the few, what are the determinant factors? I am left asking: What is the value of a life?

Philosophically, this ethical dilemma is captured succinctly via the “trolley problem,” formulated in 1967 by Philippa Foot, MD. This is how Dr. Foot’s formulation unfolds: Close your eyes, and imagine you are inside a trolley careening unhindered down the rumbling tracks. Straight ahead you see five people bound to the tracks in imminent danger of being struck, and on the other side, one person is tied to the tracks. Do you continue the same course – thereby condemning five innocent people to death – or do you make the active decision to switch tracks, therefore consigning the one to their fate? Envision the people what do they look like? How old are they? If the one were a small child or a close friend, would that alter your decision? How does one make such a harrowing choice knowing the irreversible consequences? Depending on your action, this quandary falls within two primary schools of thought: Utilitarianism, which posits that the best action is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontologicalism, which suggests that action is inherently right or wrong regardless of the consequences. Therefore, the decision to save the five is not favored.

However simplistic those scenarios may read, such principles when viewed through different lenses, they form the basis of medical ethics. In effect, every acute decision, every aspect of treatment is predicated upon the principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility, distributive justice, and autonomy. Yet, the manner in which they are applied is highly contingent upon myriad variables. For example, sociopolitical factors, including population size (rural versus urban), economics (impoverished versus wealthy), as well as demographic factors (age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) can highly influence and sometimes unknowingly influence interpretation and allocation of health care resources. This dilemma does not yield easily applicable and universal solutions. Nevertheless, it is paramount to evaluate policies effectively and tediously, particularly those with detrimental ramifications. Likewise, remaining flexible in our willingness to explore alternative solutions and encourage open discord among those with opposing viewpoints is key to instituting individual or institutional change that values the one as it values the many.

After several weeks of acute illness and a variety of short-acting interventions, I received approval to resume intravenous therapy. While the saga has ultimately reached a satisfactory conclusion, I am left with stupefied disbelief toward the people who took a gamble on my health. I am facing a battle between understanding the obligation of medicine to provide ethical and reasonable care without hesitation or judgment versus embittered resentment when faced with those who openly campaign against lifesaving interventions, such as the COVID-19 vaccine. For me, each day and the one that follows is riddled with complicated emotion. Every time I prematurely cease activity out of discomfort and weariness, I worry about my increasingly foreboding workload. In those moments, in that place of questions without answers, I remember that someone somewhere ultimately decided to switch the trolley’s track.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

COVID-19’s relentless toll on the clinical workforce inspired four doctors to draft an action plan to stem the exits and help colleagues preserve their physical and mental health.

Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.

“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.

“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”

Among the other action items are:

• Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
• Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
• Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
• Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
• Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.

The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine

Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost

Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.

She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.

“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.

Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.

“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.

Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.

“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”

Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.

“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.

Favorable reactions to list

Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”

Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.

Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.

“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
 

Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement

Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.

The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.

According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.

“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.

The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
 

Related research

A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.

The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.

Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.

The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”

Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

COVID-19’s relentless toll on the clinical workforce inspired four doctors to draft an action plan to stem the exits and help colleagues preserve their physical and mental health.

Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.

“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.

“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”

Among the other action items are:

• Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
• Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
• Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
• Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
• Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.

The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine

Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost

Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.

She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.

“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.

Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.

“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.

Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.

“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”

Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.

“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.

Favorable reactions to list

Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”

Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.

Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.

“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
 

Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement

Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.

The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.

According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.

“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.

The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
 

Related research

A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.

The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.

Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.

The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”

Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

COVID-19’s relentless toll on the clinical workforce inspired four doctors to draft an action plan to stem the exits and help colleagues preserve their physical and mental health.

Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.

“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.

“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”

Among the other action items are:

• Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
• Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
• Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
• Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
• Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.

The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine

Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost

Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.

She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.

“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.

Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.

“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.

Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.

“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”

Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.

“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.

Favorable reactions to list

Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”

Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.

Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.

“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
 

Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement

Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.

The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.

According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.

“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.

The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
 

Related research

A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.

The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.

Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.

The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”

Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Over the past 5 years, the prognosis for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has changed markedly, thanks to the development and approval of several therapeutic agents.¹ This supplement to Federal Practitioner reviews a once-daily oral formulation for relapsed/refractory patients with AML. 

Click here to read the supplement.

11/21 HE-US-2100483

1. Bohl SR, Bullinger L, Rücker FG. New targeted agents in acute myeloid leukemia: new hope on the rise. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(8):1983.

Over the past 5 years, the prognosis for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has changed markedly, thanks to the development and approval of several therapeutic agents.¹ This supplement to Federal Practitioner reviews a once-daily oral formulation for relapsed/refractory patients with AML. 

Click here to read the supplement.

11/21 HE-US-2100483

1. Bohl SR, Bullinger L, Rücker FG. New targeted agents in acute myeloid leukemia: new hope on the rise. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(8):1983.

Over the past 5 years, the prognosis for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has changed markedly, thanks to the development and approval of several therapeutic agents.¹ This supplement to Federal Practitioner reviews a once-daily oral formulation for relapsed/refractory patients with AML. 

Click here to read the supplement.

11/21 HE-US-2100483

1. Bohl SR, Bullinger L, Rücker FG. New targeted agents in acute myeloid leukemia: new hope on the rise. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(8):1983.

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.