User login
MDedge latest news is breaking news from medical conferences, journals, guidelines, the FDA and CDC.
Polypectomy Best Practices Not Routinely Followed in US
, an analysis of more than 1.8 million colonoscopies found.
“We expected to find some variations in polypectomy technique, but the results were surprising; overall, cold snare usage was much lower than expected, given that this is the recommended method for removing most small polyps,” Seth Crockett, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in the October issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Using Gastroenterology Quality Improvement Consortium Registry data, Crockett and colleagues analyzed more than 1.8 million colonoscopies performed by 4601 endoscopists between 2019 and 2022 across 702 sites. All colonoscopies involved removal of polyps < 1 cm; lesions of this size are commonly found in screening colonoscopies, and detection is crucial to early cancer prevention.
The researchers found striking variation in polypectomy technique. Guideline-based cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was used in only 58% of cases (and as a single device in only 51%), whereas cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) accounted for 35% and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 11%.
The fact that CSP was used in fewer than 60% of cases represents “an important quality gap,” the authors wrote, adding that the fact that more than 10% of colonoscopies used HSP suggests that “some patients harboring low-risk lesions may be exposed to excess risk related to these practice variations.”
And while recommendations around the use of CFP are more nuanced (based largely on forceps type and polyp size), the “high frequency of CFP also suggests nonadherence to best practices,” they noted.
Gastroenterologists More Apt to Follow Guidance
Polypectomy technique varied by polyp type. CFP was more common in cases where only hyperplastic polyps were removed compared with cases with tubular adenomas (45% vs 30%, respectively). CSP use was highest in cases where only sessile serrated lesions were removed (66%) compared with cases with only tubular adenomas (61%) or hyperplastic polyps (37%).
There was also considerable variation by provider specialty.
Gastroenterologists (compared with non-GI specialists) used HSP less (4% vs 8%) and CSP more (40% vs 34%). Colonoscopies performed with GI fellows were more likely to use CFP (31% vs 21%) and less likely to use HSP (1% vs 5%) compared with colonoscopies without fellows.
“It was somewhat reassuring that colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations, which suggests that dedicated endoscopy training is likely an important factor driving high-quality colonoscopy,” Crockett told GI & Hepatology News.
“Unexpectedly,” polypectomy technique also differed dramatically by geographic region, he said. CFP was used more than twice as often in the Northeast (31%) as in the Midwest (14%), whereas CSP was used more frequently in the Midwest (52%) than in the Northeast (32%).
“We suspect that much of the variation is related to differences in training, preferences, habits, and evolution of colonoscopy practice over time,” Crockett said. “More research is needed on the underlying drivers of this variation, and how differences in polypectomy technique impact both the safety and efficacy of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer,” he said.
“As a specialty, we need to continue to work on disseminating guideline recommendations regarding colonoscopy quality, monitoring adherence to evidence-based practices, and working to address gaps in quality where they exist,” he added.
‘Concerning, Surprising, and Disappointing’
David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, called the results “concerning, surprising, and disappointing” and not consistent with the most current quality recommendations that advocate cold snare for most polyps less than 1 cm in size.
“Cold snare polypectomy has been shown not only to be more effective but also takes less time to perform, relative to cold biopsy,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Johnson told GI & Hepatology News, “Inadequate lesion resection and variation in resection quality are major issues for colonoscopy quality. Those who perform colonoscopies need to be up-to-date with evidence-based quality standards — as well as held accountable if [there is] discordant practice — if we are to optimize the cancer prevention benefits of quality colonoscopy.”
Limitations of the current analysis include lack of extensive patient information and inability to further stratify polyps < 1 cm by size.
The study had no commercial funding. Crockett had no disclosures. Johnson disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, an analysis of more than 1.8 million colonoscopies found.
“We expected to find some variations in polypectomy technique, but the results were surprising; overall, cold snare usage was much lower than expected, given that this is the recommended method for removing most small polyps,” Seth Crockett, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in the October issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Using Gastroenterology Quality Improvement Consortium Registry data, Crockett and colleagues analyzed more than 1.8 million colonoscopies performed by 4601 endoscopists between 2019 and 2022 across 702 sites. All colonoscopies involved removal of polyps < 1 cm; lesions of this size are commonly found in screening colonoscopies, and detection is crucial to early cancer prevention.
The researchers found striking variation in polypectomy technique. Guideline-based cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was used in only 58% of cases (and as a single device in only 51%), whereas cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) accounted for 35% and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 11%.
The fact that CSP was used in fewer than 60% of cases represents “an important quality gap,” the authors wrote, adding that the fact that more than 10% of colonoscopies used HSP suggests that “some patients harboring low-risk lesions may be exposed to excess risk related to these practice variations.”
And while recommendations around the use of CFP are more nuanced (based largely on forceps type and polyp size), the “high frequency of CFP also suggests nonadherence to best practices,” they noted.
Gastroenterologists More Apt to Follow Guidance
Polypectomy technique varied by polyp type. CFP was more common in cases where only hyperplastic polyps were removed compared with cases with tubular adenomas (45% vs 30%, respectively). CSP use was highest in cases where only sessile serrated lesions were removed (66%) compared with cases with only tubular adenomas (61%) or hyperplastic polyps (37%).
There was also considerable variation by provider specialty.
Gastroenterologists (compared with non-GI specialists) used HSP less (4% vs 8%) and CSP more (40% vs 34%). Colonoscopies performed with GI fellows were more likely to use CFP (31% vs 21%) and less likely to use HSP (1% vs 5%) compared with colonoscopies without fellows.
“It was somewhat reassuring that colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations, which suggests that dedicated endoscopy training is likely an important factor driving high-quality colonoscopy,” Crockett told GI & Hepatology News.
“Unexpectedly,” polypectomy technique also differed dramatically by geographic region, he said. CFP was used more than twice as often in the Northeast (31%) as in the Midwest (14%), whereas CSP was used more frequently in the Midwest (52%) than in the Northeast (32%).
“We suspect that much of the variation is related to differences in training, preferences, habits, and evolution of colonoscopy practice over time,” Crockett said. “More research is needed on the underlying drivers of this variation, and how differences in polypectomy technique impact both the safety and efficacy of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer,” he said.
“As a specialty, we need to continue to work on disseminating guideline recommendations regarding colonoscopy quality, monitoring adherence to evidence-based practices, and working to address gaps in quality where they exist,” he added.
‘Concerning, Surprising, and Disappointing’
David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, called the results “concerning, surprising, and disappointing” and not consistent with the most current quality recommendations that advocate cold snare for most polyps less than 1 cm in size.
“Cold snare polypectomy has been shown not only to be more effective but also takes less time to perform, relative to cold biopsy,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Johnson told GI & Hepatology News, “Inadequate lesion resection and variation in resection quality are major issues for colonoscopy quality. Those who perform colonoscopies need to be up-to-date with evidence-based quality standards — as well as held accountable if [there is] discordant practice — if we are to optimize the cancer prevention benefits of quality colonoscopy.”
Limitations of the current analysis include lack of extensive patient information and inability to further stratify polyps < 1 cm by size.
The study had no commercial funding. Crockett had no disclosures. Johnson disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, an analysis of more than 1.8 million colonoscopies found.
“We expected to find some variations in polypectomy technique, but the results were surprising; overall, cold snare usage was much lower than expected, given that this is the recommended method for removing most small polyps,” Seth Crockett, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in the October issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Using Gastroenterology Quality Improvement Consortium Registry data, Crockett and colleagues analyzed more than 1.8 million colonoscopies performed by 4601 endoscopists between 2019 and 2022 across 702 sites. All colonoscopies involved removal of polyps < 1 cm; lesions of this size are commonly found in screening colonoscopies, and detection is crucial to early cancer prevention.
The researchers found striking variation in polypectomy technique. Guideline-based cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was used in only 58% of cases (and as a single device in only 51%), whereas cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) accounted for 35% and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 11%.
The fact that CSP was used in fewer than 60% of cases represents “an important quality gap,” the authors wrote, adding that the fact that more than 10% of colonoscopies used HSP suggests that “some patients harboring low-risk lesions may be exposed to excess risk related to these practice variations.”
And while recommendations around the use of CFP are more nuanced (based largely on forceps type and polyp size), the “high frequency of CFP also suggests nonadherence to best practices,” they noted.
Gastroenterologists More Apt to Follow Guidance
Polypectomy technique varied by polyp type. CFP was more common in cases where only hyperplastic polyps were removed compared with cases with tubular adenomas (45% vs 30%, respectively). CSP use was highest in cases where only sessile serrated lesions were removed (66%) compared with cases with only tubular adenomas (61%) or hyperplastic polyps (37%).
There was also considerable variation by provider specialty.
Gastroenterologists (compared with non-GI specialists) used HSP less (4% vs 8%) and CSP more (40% vs 34%). Colonoscopies performed with GI fellows were more likely to use CFP (31% vs 21%) and less likely to use HSP (1% vs 5%) compared with colonoscopies without fellows.
“It was somewhat reassuring that colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations, which suggests that dedicated endoscopy training is likely an important factor driving high-quality colonoscopy,” Crockett told GI & Hepatology News.
“Unexpectedly,” polypectomy technique also differed dramatically by geographic region, he said. CFP was used more than twice as often in the Northeast (31%) as in the Midwest (14%), whereas CSP was used more frequently in the Midwest (52%) than in the Northeast (32%).
“We suspect that much of the variation is related to differences in training, preferences, habits, and evolution of colonoscopy practice over time,” Crockett said. “More research is needed on the underlying drivers of this variation, and how differences in polypectomy technique impact both the safety and efficacy of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer,” he said.
“As a specialty, we need to continue to work on disseminating guideline recommendations regarding colonoscopy quality, monitoring adherence to evidence-based practices, and working to address gaps in quality where they exist,” he added.
‘Concerning, Surprising, and Disappointing’
David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, called the results “concerning, surprising, and disappointing” and not consistent with the most current quality recommendations that advocate cold snare for most polyps less than 1 cm in size.
“Cold snare polypectomy has been shown not only to be more effective but also takes less time to perform, relative to cold biopsy,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Johnson told GI & Hepatology News, “Inadequate lesion resection and variation in resection quality are major issues for colonoscopy quality. Those who perform colonoscopies need to be up-to-date with evidence-based quality standards — as well as held accountable if [there is] discordant practice — if we are to optimize the cancer prevention benefits of quality colonoscopy.”
Limitations of the current analysis include lack of extensive patient information and inability to further stratify polyps < 1 cm by size.
The study had no commercial funding. Crockett had no disclosures. Johnson disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Colon Cleanses: How to Discourage Patients
Social media is rife with content promoting colon cleansing as a way to shed toxins and fix everything from chronic fatigue and overweight to weak immunity and skin problems.
Even doctors who aren’t hip to the latest TikTok trends may not be able to avoid the hype. That’s because patients are bringing up colon cleansing during their office visit.
“Patients often raise questions about colonics or detox teas, especially when these gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok,” said Tauseef Ali, MD, AGAF, medical executive director of SSM Health Digestive Care at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City. “Interest typically comes in waves, closely tied to the latest online trends.”
That means . And it’s not just patients who are asking.
“Sometimes we’ll get a message from primary care,” Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric and Third Space Endoscopy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado, told GI & Hepatology News. They’re getting the same questions from patients, and they want to know if colon cleansing that’s not connected with a colonoscopy exam has any benefits for overall health or specific health conditions.
The answer is no, and patients are more likely to believe that when physicians explain it using good information. Here is how Ali, Bilal, and professional organizations advise doctors to approach the issue.
What Exactly Is a Colon Cleanse?
Colon cleanses come in a variety of forms. Colonic irrigation, also called colon hydrotherapy, involves inserting a tube into the rectum and flushing out the colon with a large amount of fluid. Enemas do the same but use a small amount of liquid, and some product instructions tell the user to “hold it” for a designated amount of time before expelling colon contents.
Other cleanses, often called detoxing cleanses, are laxatives or herbal teas that users drink — and then stay close to the bathroom. Detox regimens and diets also are mentioned as a way to remove toxins from the body, improve health, and promote well-being.
Why Do Patients Use Them?
“Many patients describe a desire for ‘cleanliness,’ ‘detoxification,’ or to ‘feel lighter,’” Ali told GI & Hepatology News.
The claims on social media promote all of this and more — and well-known influencers make it all sound even more attractive.
“These motivations are often rooted in the cultural belief that the colon accumulates harmful toxins that must be flushed out,” Ali said. “This idea is not supported by scientific evidence. The body’s natural detox systems, primarily the liver and kidneys, already perform this function effectively.”
Bilal said that in recent years, he has noticed more awareness in general about the importance of gut health. “When there’s awareness, people often go to the other extreme,” he said.
Where Is the Evidence?
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, warns on an information page that both cleansing and detox programs can be unsafe and falsely advertised.
While searches of medical literature turn up few studies, the NCCIH information points to a 2014 review that concluded that there is no compelling research to support the use of detox diets for managing weight or eliminating toxins. A 2017 review found juicing and detox regimens can cause weight loss initially but then lead to weight gain once a normal diet is resumed.
A systematic review of research on the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enemas found nine case reports describing adverse events: seven reported colitis after the enema, and two reported more critical adverse events. All nine reports warned against the procedure. The researchers found no study reporting the effectiveness of coffee enemas.
The NCCIH information also notes that there is “limited clinical evidence validating colonic irrigation and insufficient evidence for its prescribed uses.”
Are Cleanses Regulated?
Some over-the-counter colon cleansing products are viewed as dietary supplements, giving the FDA authority to regulate them and take action under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
Certain products promoted as colon cleanses, such as laxatives, are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs and must meet safety and other requirements.
Colonic irrigation systems meant for cleansing before radiologic or endoscopic exams are class II devices — subject to 510(k) premarket notification requirements before marketing — whereas systems intended for other uses, such as routine colon cleansing for general well-being, are regarded as class III devices — subject to premarket approval requirements — according to an FDA spokesperson. To date, the FDA has not approved any colonic irrigation devices for the latter use, the spokesperson said.
For instance, the FDA warned consumers not to use a product promoted for colon cleansing after finding it contained tadalafil, the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction. The FDA has also issued numerous warning letters to the makers of colon cleansing devices, as they are not approved for this purpose.
The Federal Trade Commission can also take action specifically if the claims about the benefits and safety of products — including supplements, foods, over-the-counter drugs, or health equipment — are false, misleading, or not supported by science.
What Are the Dangers?
Cleanse and detox products come with many risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and infections, Ali said. With colonic irrigation, there is a risk for rectal perforation. Products also may disrupt the gut microbiome, and some can interact with medications or worsen underlying health conditions, he added.
“It’s important for patients to be aware of these risks before considering nonmedical ‘cleaning’ methods,” he said.
At worst, patients risk fatality, Ali noted. He recalled a young patient who began using a vegetable enema as a detox. As it was being administered, the colon ruptured. The patient was admitted as a medical emergency and required surgery. Fortunately, the patient survived, but the incident could have proven fatal, Ali said.
Educating Patients
Because patients often don’t think of herbal cleanses, detox teas, and over-the-counter powders as supplements, Ali said it’s important to ask them about everything they take.
One way to frame this question is to ask if they are consuming any over-the-counter supplements or any other remedies, he said, and perhaps ask directly about any cleanses they are doing.
When patients ask him about colon cleanses, Ali explains the difference between evidence-based colonoscopy preparation and unregulated “cleanses.” Most patients respond to that approach, he said. Indeed, AGA and other GI societies updated their recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy.
“Still, the appeal of quick fixes of social media trends can sometimes outweigh medical advice,” Ali said. He depends on building trusted relationships and reinforcing the message over time and finds that helps patients make informed and healthier choices.
Bilal, too, explains to patients that cleanses are unnecessary and educates them about what to do instead:
- Eat a containing the recommended amount of (22-34 g, depending on age and gender).
- For , follow a bowel regimen advised by your doctor.
- If gastrointestinal issues persist, get a medical checkup.
- Get any unexplained constipation or checked out by a doctor.
Taking a careful history can pay off, Ali has found. He questioned a patient complaining of abdominal discomfort whose testing found unexpectedly elevated liver enzymes and found she had been using an herbal “cleanse tea” found online. Within 4 weeks of stopping it, her liver enzymes normalized. “Thankfully, she made a full recovery — and she never touched those remedies again,” he said.
Ali had no relevant disclosures. Bilal reported consulting for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Steris.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Social media is rife with content promoting colon cleansing as a way to shed toxins and fix everything from chronic fatigue and overweight to weak immunity and skin problems.
Even doctors who aren’t hip to the latest TikTok trends may not be able to avoid the hype. That’s because patients are bringing up colon cleansing during their office visit.
“Patients often raise questions about colonics or detox teas, especially when these gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok,” said Tauseef Ali, MD, AGAF, medical executive director of SSM Health Digestive Care at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City. “Interest typically comes in waves, closely tied to the latest online trends.”
That means . And it’s not just patients who are asking.
“Sometimes we’ll get a message from primary care,” Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric and Third Space Endoscopy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado, told GI & Hepatology News. They’re getting the same questions from patients, and they want to know if colon cleansing that’s not connected with a colonoscopy exam has any benefits for overall health or specific health conditions.
The answer is no, and patients are more likely to believe that when physicians explain it using good information. Here is how Ali, Bilal, and professional organizations advise doctors to approach the issue.
What Exactly Is a Colon Cleanse?
Colon cleanses come in a variety of forms. Colonic irrigation, also called colon hydrotherapy, involves inserting a tube into the rectum and flushing out the colon with a large amount of fluid. Enemas do the same but use a small amount of liquid, and some product instructions tell the user to “hold it” for a designated amount of time before expelling colon contents.
Other cleanses, often called detoxing cleanses, are laxatives or herbal teas that users drink — and then stay close to the bathroom. Detox regimens and diets also are mentioned as a way to remove toxins from the body, improve health, and promote well-being.
Why Do Patients Use Them?
“Many patients describe a desire for ‘cleanliness,’ ‘detoxification,’ or to ‘feel lighter,’” Ali told GI & Hepatology News.
The claims on social media promote all of this and more — and well-known influencers make it all sound even more attractive.
“These motivations are often rooted in the cultural belief that the colon accumulates harmful toxins that must be flushed out,” Ali said. “This idea is not supported by scientific evidence. The body’s natural detox systems, primarily the liver and kidneys, already perform this function effectively.”
Bilal said that in recent years, he has noticed more awareness in general about the importance of gut health. “When there’s awareness, people often go to the other extreme,” he said.
Where Is the Evidence?
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, warns on an information page that both cleansing and detox programs can be unsafe and falsely advertised.
While searches of medical literature turn up few studies, the NCCIH information points to a 2014 review that concluded that there is no compelling research to support the use of detox diets for managing weight or eliminating toxins. A 2017 review found juicing and detox regimens can cause weight loss initially but then lead to weight gain once a normal diet is resumed.
A systematic review of research on the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enemas found nine case reports describing adverse events: seven reported colitis after the enema, and two reported more critical adverse events. All nine reports warned against the procedure. The researchers found no study reporting the effectiveness of coffee enemas.
The NCCIH information also notes that there is “limited clinical evidence validating colonic irrigation and insufficient evidence for its prescribed uses.”
Are Cleanses Regulated?
Some over-the-counter colon cleansing products are viewed as dietary supplements, giving the FDA authority to regulate them and take action under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
Certain products promoted as colon cleanses, such as laxatives, are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs and must meet safety and other requirements.
Colonic irrigation systems meant for cleansing before radiologic or endoscopic exams are class II devices — subject to 510(k) premarket notification requirements before marketing — whereas systems intended for other uses, such as routine colon cleansing for general well-being, are regarded as class III devices — subject to premarket approval requirements — according to an FDA spokesperson. To date, the FDA has not approved any colonic irrigation devices for the latter use, the spokesperson said.
For instance, the FDA warned consumers not to use a product promoted for colon cleansing after finding it contained tadalafil, the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction. The FDA has also issued numerous warning letters to the makers of colon cleansing devices, as they are not approved for this purpose.
The Federal Trade Commission can also take action specifically if the claims about the benefits and safety of products — including supplements, foods, over-the-counter drugs, or health equipment — are false, misleading, or not supported by science.
What Are the Dangers?
Cleanse and detox products come with many risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and infections, Ali said. With colonic irrigation, there is a risk for rectal perforation. Products also may disrupt the gut microbiome, and some can interact with medications or worsen underlying health conditions, he added.
“It’s important for patients to be aware of these risks before considering nonmedical ‘cleaning’ methods,” he said.
At worst, patients risk fatality, Ali noted. He recalled a young patient who began using a vegetable enema as a detox. As it was being administered, the colon ruptured. The patient was admitted as a medical emergency and required surgery. Fortunately, the patient survived, but the incident could have proven fatal, Ali said.
Educating Patients
Because patients often don’t think of herbal cleanses, detox teas, and over-the-counter powders as supplements, Ali said it’s important to ask them about everything they take.
One way to frame this question is to ask if they are consuming any over-the-counter supplements or any other remedies, he said, and perhaps ask directly about any cleanses they are doing.
When patients ask him about colon cleanses, Ali explains the difference between evidence-based colonoscopy preparation and unregulated “cleanses.” Most patients respond to that approach, he said. Indeed, AGA and other GI societies updated their recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy.
“Still, the appeal of quick fixes of social media trends can sometimes outweigh medical advice,” Ali said. He depends on building trusted relationships and reinforcing the message over time and finds that helps patients make informed and healthier choices.
Bilal, too, explains to patients that cleanses are unnecessary and educates them about what to do instead:
- Eat a containing the recommended amount of (22-34 g, depending on age and gender).
- For , follow a bowel regimen advised by your doctor.
- If gastrointestinal issues persist, get a medical checkup.
- Get any unexplained constipation or checked out by a doctor.
Taking a careful history can pay off, Ali has found. He questioned a patient complaining of abdominal discomfort whose testing found unexpectedly elevated liver enzymes and found she had been using an herbal “cleanse tea” found online. Within 4 weeks of stopping it, her liver enzymes normalized. “Thankfully, she made a full recovery — and she never touched those remedies again,” he said.
Ali had no relevant disclosures. Bilal reported consulting for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Steris.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Social media is rife with content promoting colon cleansing as a way to shed toxins and fix everything from chronic fatigue and overweight to weak immunity and skin problems.
Even doctors who aren’t hip to the latest TikTok trends may not be able to avoid the hype. That’s because patients are bringing up colon cleansing during their office visit.
“Patients often raise questions about colonics or detox teas, especially when these gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok,” said Tauseef Ali, MD, AGAF, medical executive director of SSM Health Digestive Care at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City. “Interest typically comes in waves, closely tied to the latest online trends.”
That means . And it’s not just patients who are asking.
“Sometimes we’ll get a message from primary care,” Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric and Third Space Endoscopy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado, told GI & Hepatology News. They’re getting the same questions from patients, and they want to know if colon cleansing that’s not connected with a colonoscopy exam has any benefits for overall health or specific health conditions.
The answer is no, and patients are more likely to believe that when physicians explain it using good information. Here is how Ali, Bilal, and professional organizations advise doctors to approach the issue.
What Exactly Is a Colon Cleanse?
Colon cleanses come in a variety of forms. Colonic irrigation, also called colon hydrotherapy, involves inserting a tube into the rectum and flushing out the colon with a large amount of fluid. Enemas do the same but use a small amount of liquid, and some product instructions tell the user to “hold it” for a designated amount of time before expelling colon contents.
Other cleanses, often called detoxing cleanses, are laxatives or herbal teas that users drink — and then stay close to the bathroom. Detox regimens and diets also are mentioned as a way to remove toxins from the body, improve health, and promote well-being.
Why Do Patients Use Them?
“Many patients describe a desire for ‘cleanliness,’ ‘detoxification,’ or to ‘feel lighter,’” Ali told GI & Hepatology News.
The claims on social media promote all of this and more — and well-known influencers make it all sound even more attractive.
“These motivations are often rooted in the cultural belief that the colon accumulates harmful toxins that must be flushed out,” Ali said. “This idea is not supported by scientific evidence. The body’s natural detox systems, primarily the liver and kidneys, already perform this function effectively.”
Bilal said that in recent years, he has noticed more awareness in general about the importance of gut health. “When there’s awareness, people often go to the other extreme,” he said.
Where Is the Evidence?
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, warns on an information page that both cleansing and detox programs can be unsafe and falsely advertised.
While searches of medical literature turn up few studies, the NCCIH information points to a 2014 review that concluded that there is no compelling research to support the use of detox diets for managing weight or eliminating toxins. A 2017 review found juicing and detox regimens can cause weight loss initially but then lead to weight gain once a normal diet is resumed.
A systematic review of research on the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enemas found nine case reports describing adverse events: seven reported colitis after the enema, and two reported more critical adverse events. All nine reports warned against the procedure. The researchers found no study reporting the effectiveness of coffee enemas.
The NCCIH information also notes that there is “limited clinical evidence validating colonic irrigation and insufficient evidence for its prescribed uses.”
Are Cleanses Regulated?
Some over-the-counter colon cleansing products are viewed as dietary supplements, giving the FDA authority to regulate them and take action under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
Certain products promoted as colon cleanses, such as laxatives, are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs and must meet safety and other requirements.
Colonic irrigation systems meant for cleansing before radiologic or endoscopic exams are class II devices — subject to 510(k) premarket notification requirements before marketing — whereas systems intended for other uses, such as routine colon cleansing for general well-being, are regarded as class III devices — subject to premarket approval requirements — according to an FDA spokesperson. To date, the FDA has not approved any colonic irrigation devices for the latter use, the spokesperson said.
For instance, the FDA warned consumers not to use a product promoted for colon cleansing after finding it contained tadalafil, the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction. The FDA has also issued numerous warning letters to the makers of colon cleansing devices, as they are not approved for this purpose.
The Federal Trade Commission can also take action specifically if the claims about the benefits and safety of products — including supplements, foods, over-the-counter drugs, or health equipment — are false, misleading, or not supported by science.
What Are the Dangers?
Cleanse and detox products come with many risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and infections, Ali said. With colonic irrigation, there is a risk for rectal perforation. Products also may disrupt the gut microbiome, and some can interact with medications or worsen underlying health conditions, he added.
“It’s important for patients to be aware of these risks before considering nonmedical ‘cleaning’ methods,” he said.
At worst, patients risk fatality, Ali noted. He recalled a young patient who began using a vegetable enema as a detox. As it was being administered, the colon ruptured. The patient was admitted as a medical emergency and required surgery. Fortunately, the patient survived, but the incident could have proven fatal, Ali said.
Educating Patients
Because patients often don’t think of herbal cleanses, detox teas, and over-the-counter powders as supplements, Ali said it’s important to ask them about everything they take.
One way to frame this question is to ask if they are consuming any over-the-counter supplements or any other remedies, he said, and perhaps ask directly about any cleanses they are doing.
When patients ask him about colon cleanses, Ali explains the difference between evidence-based colonoscopy preparation and unregulated “cleanses.” Most patients respond to that approach, he said. Indeed, AGA and other GI societies updated their recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy.
“Still, the appeal of quick fixes of social media trends can sometimes outweigh medical advice,” Ali said. He depends on building trusted relationships and reinforcing the message over time and finds that helps patients make informed and healthier choices.
Bilal, too, explains to patients that cleanses are unnecessary and educates them about what to do instead:
- Eat a containing the recommended amount of (22-34 g, depending on age and gender).
- For , follow a bowel regimen advised by your doctor.
- If gastrointestinal issues persist, get a medical checkup.
- Get any unexplained constipation or checked out by a doctor.
Taking a careful history can pay off, Ali has found. He questioned a patient complaining of abdominal discomfort whose testing found unexpectedly elevated liver enzymes and found she had been using an herbal “cleanse tea” found online. Within 4 weeks of stopping it, her liver enzymes normalized. “Thankfully, she made a full recovery — and she never touched those remedies again,” he said.
Ali had no relevant disclosures. Bilal reported consulting for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Steris.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Finding the Best Match for MASLD Management
, according to the authors of clinical reviews who offered guidance on the pros and cons of resmetirom and semaglutide.
MASLD has become one of the most common causes of chronic liver disease due to the increased prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic disorders, Joanne Lin, DO, an internist in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote, in a review published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
Its complexity makes MASLD challenging to manage. Metabolic, genetic, and environmental factors are involved in the disease, so patients require multidisciplinary and individualized care, Lin told GI & Hepatology News.
Weight loss, dietary changes, and exercise had long been the only treatment approach clinicians could offer patients. But the approval of two drugs — the thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist resmetirom and the GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) semaglutide — for patients whose MASLD has advanced to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) gives physicians new options for patients with severe disease.
In the review, published online before the official approval of semaglutide, Lin and colleagues proposed an algorithm to guide clinicians in choosing a pharmacological therapy for MASLD. “Resmetirom should be primarily used to reverse fibrosis for patients with MASLD and F2-F3 stages, while GLP-1 RAs are beneficial in managing metabolic comorbidities and weight loss in patients with MASLD,” the researchers concluded.
GLP-1 Power and Potential
In August 2025, the FDA approved semaglutide for MASH and cited evidence from the ESSENCE trial in its decision.
The ESSENCE study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed significantly higher rates of resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis and reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening steatohepatitis in patients with MASH and moderate or advanced liver fibrosis who received 2.4 mg of once-weekly semaglutide compared with patients who received placebo.
The most common adverse events reported with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal-related, including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation, and are mainly mild-to-moderate and dose dependent, Lin and colleagues noted in their review.
GLP-1s have some limitations, Lin said. “GLP-1s are great for weight loss and metabolic risk reduction, but studies are still ongoing to determine their effect on liver histology and reversing fibrosis/cirrhosis,” she said. Some patients seeking these medications also have trouble obtaining them because of their popularity for weight loss, she noted.
Resmetirom Shows Success
Resmetirom has demonstrated ability to target hepatocytes and increase the hepatic metabolism of lipids, Lin and colleagues wrote in their review.
Several trials have examined resmetirom as a treatment for MASH, notably the landmark MAESTRO-NASH study , a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nearly 1000 adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 fibrosis, which was the basis for the FDA’s approval of the drug in 2024. In the study, 25.9% of the patients treated with 80 mg of resmetirom and 29.9% treated with 100 mg resmetirom achieved MASH resolution with no increase in fibrosis compared with 9.7% of patients treated with placebo. In addition, 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group achieved fibrosis improvement by at least one stage without worsening of MASLD activity scores compared with 14.2% of patients treated with placebo.
The most common reported side effects from resmetirom are diarrhea or constipation, nausea or vomiting, and abdominal pain.
“The limitations of resmetirom include the absence of validated predictors for individual patient response, and no societal guidelines are available to determine when to stop the medication if ineffective,” Lin told GI & Hepatology News. In addition, resmetirom is currently only recommended for a subset of patients with F2-F3 fibrosis, based on the existing trial, she said.
Other limitations include its high cost, which restricts access to the drug for some patients, and lack of long-term safety and efficacy data, Lin added.
Weighing the Options
Comparing the emerging agents in the context of MASLD/MASH is important to help clinicians understand how different patient populations respond and guide evidence-based treatment decisions, said Hazem Ayesh, MD, an endocrinologist at Deaconess Health System, Evansville, Indiana, in an interview.
“The choice of therapy should be individualized based on comorbidities,” said Ayesh, the lead author of a 2024 review published in Biomedicines that compared resmetirom, GLP-1 agonists, and fibroblast growth factor 21 analogs.
“For example, a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be more appropriate for patients with coexisting diabetes or obesity, while resmetirom may be better suited for patients with more advanced liver disease or minimal metabolic comorbidities,” he said.
GLP-1 RAs, such as semaglutide, offer benefits for diabetes, obesity, and metabolic dysfunction in patients with MASLD/MASH and may be more accessible and cost effective, Ayesh told GI & Hepatology News. However, some patients may experience gastrointestinal side effects or be unable to tolerate GLP-1 RAs, he noted.
By contrast, resmetirom may be preferable for patients with low BMI, advanced fibrosis, or an inability to tolerate GLP-1s, as resmetirom directly targets hepatic pathways involved in MASLD/MASH progression, Ayesh said.
Next Steps to Inform Practice
“More research is needed to validate noninvasive biomarkers to monitor response to these medications, determine predictors of efficacy, and evaluate the additive effects, safety, and drug-drug interactions of combination therapy,” Lin said.
Studies are needed to determine both medications’ effects on patients with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis and special populations, such as individuals with advanced renal disease or posttransplant patients, she added. More studies are expected to inform clinical practice and proper guidelines for the treatment of MASLD, as has been the case with chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes, Lin said.
Long-term safety and efficacy data are critical, as most trials of the newly approved medications have had relatively short follow-up periods of approximately 1 year, Ayesh said. “We need real-world evidence and longitudinal studies spanning 3-5 years to confirm sustained efficacy and safety,” he said. Research on cost effectiveness and health-system impacts will be essential to guide policy and ensure equitable access to the medications, he added.
The study by Lin and colleagues received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ayesh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the authors of clinical reviews who offered guidance on the pros and cons of resmetirom and semaglutide.
MASLD has become one of the most common causes of chronic liver disease due to the increased prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic disorders, Joanne Lin, DO, an internist in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote, in a review published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
Its complexity makes MASLD challenging to manage. Metabolic, genetic, and environmental factors are involved in the disease, so patients require multidisciplinary and individualized care, Lin told GI & Hepatology News.
Weight loss, dietary changes, and exercise had long been the only treatment approach clinicians could offer patients. But the approval of two drugs — the thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist resmetirom and the GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) semaglutide — for patients whose MASLD has advanced to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) gives physicians new options for patients with severe disease.
In the review, published online before the official approval of semaglutide, Lin and colleagues proposed an algorithm to guide clinicians in choosing a pharmacological therapy for MASLD. “Resmetirom should be primarily used to reverse fibrosis for patients with MASLD and F2-F3 stages, while GLP-1 RAs are beneficial in managing metabolic comorbidities and weight loss in patients with MASLD,” the researchers concluded.
GLP-1 Power and Potential
In August 2025, the FDA approved semaglutide for MASH and cited evidence from the ESSENCE trial in its decision.
The ESSENCE study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed significantly higher rates of resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis and reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening steatohepatitis in patients with MASH and moderate or advanced liver fibrosis who received 2.4 mg of once-weekly semaglutide compared with patients who received placebo.
The most common adverse events reported with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal-related, including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation, and are mainly mild-to-moderate and dose dependent, Lin and colleagues noted in their review.
GLP-1s have some limitations, Lin said. “GLP-1s are great for weight loss and metabolic risk reduction, but studies are still ongoing to determine their effect on liver histology and reversing fibrosis/cirrhosis,” she said. Some patients seeking these medications also have trouble obtaining them because of their popularity for weight loss, she noted.
Resmetirom Shows Success
Resmetirom has demonstrated ability to target hepatocytes and increase the hepatic metabolism of lipids, Lin and colleagues wrote in their review.
Several trials have examined resmetirom as a treatment for MASH, notably the landmark MAESTRO-NASH study , a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nearly 1000 adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 fibrosis, which was the basis for the FDA’s approval of the drug in 2024. In the study, 25.9% of the patients treated with 80 mg of resmetirom and 29.9% treated with 100 mg resmetirom achieved MASH resolution with no increase in fibrosis compared with 9.7% of patients treated with placebo. In addition, 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group achieved fibrosis improvement by at least one stage without worsening of MASLD activity scores compared with 14.2% of patients treated with placebo.
The most common reported side effects from resmetirom are diarrhea or constipation, nausea or vomiting, and abdominal pain.
“The limitations of resmetirom include the absence of validated predictors for individual patient response, and no societal guidelines are available to determine when to stop the medication if ineffective,” Lin told GI & Hepatology News. In addition, resmetirom is currently only recommended for a subset of patients with F2-F3 fibrosis, based on the existing trial, she said.
Other limitations include its high cost, which restricts access to the drug for some patients, and lack of long-term safety and efficacy data, Lin added.
Weighing the Options
Comparing the emerging agents in the context of MASLD/MASH is important to help clinicians understand how different patient populations respond and guide evidence-based treatment decisions, said Hazem Ayesh, MD, an endocrinologist at Deaconess Health System, Evansville, Indiana, in an interview.
“The choice of therapy should be individualized based on comorbidities,” said Ayesh, the lead author of a 2024 review published in Biomedicines that compared resmetirom, GLP-1 agonists, and fibroblast growth factor 21 analogs.
“For example, a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be more appropriate for patients with coexisting diabetes or obesity, while resmetirom may be better suited for patients with more advanced liver disease or minimal metabolic comorbidities,” he said.
GLP-1 RAs, such as semaglutide, offer benefits for diabetes, obesity, and metabolic dysfunction in patients with MASLD/MASH and may be more accessible and cost effective, Ayesh told GI & Hepatology News. However, some patients may experience gastrointestinal side effects or be unable to tolerate GLP-1 RAs, he noted.
By contrast, resmetirom may be preferable for patients with low BMI, advanced fibrosis, or an inability to tolerate GLP-1s, as resmetirom directly targets hepatic pathways involved in MASLD/MASH progression, Ayesh said.
Next Steps to Inform Practice
“More research is needed to validate noninvasive biomarkers to monitor response to these medications, determine predictors of efficacy, and evaluate the additive effects, safety, and drug-drug interactions of combination therapy,” Lin said.
Studies are needed to determine both medications’ effects on patients with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis and special populations, such as individuals with advanced renal disease or posttransplant patients, she added. More studies are expected to inform clinical practice and proper guidelines for the treatment of MASLD, as has been the case with chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes, Lin said.
Long-term safety and efficacy data are critical, as most trials of the newly approved medications have had relatively short follow-up periods of approximately 1 year, Ayesh said. “We need real-world evidence and longitudinal studies spanning 3-5 years to confirm sustained efficacy and safety,” he said. Research on cost effectiveness and health-system impacts will be essential to guide policy and ensure equitable access to the medications, he added.
The study by Lin and colleagues received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ayesh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the authors of clinical reviews who offered guidance on the pros and cons of resmetirom and semaglutide.
MASLD has become one of the most common causes of chronic liver disease due to the increased prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic disorders, Joanne Lin, DO, an internist in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote, in a review published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
Its complexity makes MASLD challenging to manage. Metabolic, genetic, and environmental factors are involved in the disease, so patients require multidisciplinary and individualized care, Lin told GI & Hepatology News.
Weight loss, dietary changes, and exercise had long been the only treatment approach clinicians could offer patients. But the approval of two drugs — the thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist resmetirom and the GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) semaglutide — for patients whose MASLD has advanced to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) gives physicians new options for patients with severe disease.
In the review, published online before the official approval of semaglutide, Lin and colleagues proposed an algorithm to guide clinicians in choosing a pharmacological therapy for MASLD. “Resmetirom should be primarily used to reverse fibrosis for patients with MASLD and F2-F3 stages, while GLP-1 RAs are beneficial in managing metabolic comorbidities and weight loss in patients with MASLD,” the researchers concluded.
GLP-1 Power and Potential
In August 2025, the FDA approved semaglutide for MASH and cited evidence from the ESSENCE trial in its decision.
The ESSENCE study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed significantly higher rates of resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis and reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening steatohepatitis in patients with MASH and moderate or advanced liver fibrosis who received 2.4 mg of once-weekly semaglutide compared with patients who received placebo.
The most common adverse events reported with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal-related, including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation, and are mainly mild-to-moderate and dose dependent, Lin and colleagues noted in their review.
GLP-1s have some limitations, Lin said. “GLP-1s are great for weight loss and metabolic risk reduction, but studies are still ongoing to determine their effect on liver histology and reversing fibrosis/cirrhosis,” she said. Some patients seeking these medications also have trouble obtaining them because of their popularity for weight loss, she noted.
Resmetirom Shows Success
Resmetirom has demonstrated ability to target hepatocytes and increase the hepatic metabolism of lipids, Lin and colleagues wrote in their review.
Several trials have examined resmetirom as a treatment for MASH, notably the landmark MAESTRO-NASH study , a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nearly 1000 adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 fibrosis, which was the basis for the FDA’s approval of the drug in 2024. In the study, 25.9% of the patients treated with 80 mg of resmetirom and 29.9% treated with 100 mg resmetirom achieved MASH resolution with no increase in fibrosis compared with 9.7% of patients treated with placebo. In addition, 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group achieved fibrosis improvement by at least one stage without worsening of MASLD activity scores compared with 14.2% of patients treated with placebo.
The most common reported side effects from resmetirom are diarrhea or constipation, nausea or vomiting, and abdominal pain.
“The limitations of resmetirom include the absence of validated predictors for individual patient response, and no societal guidelines are available to determine when to stop the medication if ineffective,” Lin told GI & Hepatology News. In addition, resmetirom is currently only recommended for a subset of patients with F2-F3 fibrosis, based on the existing trial, she said.
Other limitations include its high cost, which restricts access to the drug for some patients, and lack of long-term safety and efficacy data, Lin added.
Weighing the Options
Comparing the emerging agents in the context of MASLD/MASH is important to help clinicians understand how different patient populations respond and guide evidence-based treatment decisions, said Hazem Ayesh, MD, an endocrinologist at Deaconess Health System, Evansville, Indiana, in an interview.
“The choice of therapy should be individualized based on comorbidities,” said Ayesh, the lead author of a 2024 review published in Biomedicines that compared resmetirom, GLP-1 agonists, and fibroblast growth factor 21 analogs.
“For example, a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be more appropriate for patients with coexisting diabetes or obesity, while resmetirom may be better suited for patients with more advanced liver disease or minimal metabolic comorbidities,” he said.
GLP-1 RAs, such as semaglutide, offer benefits for diabetes, obesity, and metabolic dysfunction in patients with MASLD/MASH and may be more accessible and cost effective, Ayesh told GI & Hepatology News. However, some patients may experience gastrointestinal side effects or be unable to tolerate GLP-1 RAs, he noted.
By contrast, resmetirom may be preferable for patients with low BMI, advanced fibrosis, or an inability to tolerate GLP-1s, as resmetirom directly targets hepatic pathways involved in MASLD/MASH progression, Ayesh said.
Next Steps to Inform Practice
“More research is needed to validate noninvasive biomarkers to monitor response to these medications, determine predictors of efficacy, and evaluate the additive effects, safety, and drug-drug interactions of combination therapy,” Lin said.
Studies are needed to determine both medications’ effects on patients with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis and special populations, such as individuals with advanced renal disease or posttransplant patients, she added. More studies are expected to inform clinical practice and proper guidelines for the treatment of MASLD, as has been the case with chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes, Lin said.
Long-term safety and efficacy data are critical, as most trials of the newly approved medications have had relatively short follow-up periods of approximately 1 year, Ayesh said. “We need real-world evidence and longitudinal studies spanning 3-5 years to confirm sustained efficacy and safety,” he said. Research on cost effectiveness and health-system impacts will be essential to guide policy and ensure equitable access to the medications, he added.
The study by Lin and colleagues received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ayesh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaping Increases Peptic Ulcer Disease Risk
PHOENIX — , a cross-sectional study found.
The study also found increased risk of PUD among former users of e-cigarettes, reported Albert E. Ohrin, MBChB, MHS, of Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, who presented the study here at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
While cigarette smoking is a known risk factor for PUD, there was little in the literature investigating whether vaping has a similar risk profile, said Ohrin, a first-year internal medicine resident. He told GI & Hepatology News he found e-cigarette users on Reddit discussing worsening PUD and decided to investigate further, especially since vaping is so popular among young people.
E-cigarettes are the most-used tobacco product among middle and high school students. The National Youth Tobacco Survey in the US reported that 1.6 million students (5.9%) vaped in 2024, a decline from 7.7% in 2023. And the number of adults using e-cigarettes is increasing, according to the US CDC. In 2023, 6.5% of adults over age 18 used e-cigarettes, up from 3.7% in 2020.
Ohrin and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adults enrolled in the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program. Participants self-reported e-cigarette use. PUD was defined using validated electronic health record diagnosis codes.
Among the 371,398 participants, 29,373 (8%) reported using e-cigarettes, including 21,277 current users and 8096 former users. E-cigarette users were significantly younger (mean age 45.3 vs 59.3 years; P < .001), more likely to be female, and more likely to report lower education and income (P < .001).
Current e-cigarette users had 27% higher odds of PUD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45), compared to never-users. This was greater than the risk with traditional combustible cigarettes (aOR, 1.19) that was seen in the study.
Former e-cig users had 13% higher odds (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24) compared to never-users, and any e-cigarette use was associated with higher odds of PUD (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) compared to never-use.
Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (aOR, 2.15) and having gastroesophageal reflux disease (aOR, 4.45) presented the most significant PUD risk.
Ohrin said he and his colleagues were surprised to see that people who had stopped using e-cigarettes still had higher odds of PUD, although he pointed out that the researchers did not know the frequency of use or how long users had stopped.
“Now that we know there’s an association, we are going to do more studies on e-cigarettes” to see what the potential harms are, especially on the gastrointestinal system, he told GI & Hepatology News.
“One of the things we are looking to elicit is — is there a dose response?” he said, noting it would take a prospective trial to determine that effect.
‘Opens a Door’ to Looking at the GI System
Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, a professor of medicine and associate division chief of pulmonary, critical care, sleep medicine, and physiology at the University of California, San Diego, said she found the study novel and interesting.
“It’s the first I’ve heard of an association between e-cigarette vaping and peptic ulcer disease,” said Crotty Alexander, who has studied the health effects of e-cigarettes for a decade.
Previous studies have shown that nicotine itself can drive an increase in gastric acid production and decrease healing, which can contribute to PUD, Crotty Alexander told GI & Hepatology News. With combustible cigarettes, it is thought that “the larger drivers of that association are the other things in tobacco smoke, such as tar and carbon monoxide and a million other horrible chemicals,” she said.
Crotty Alexander and her colleagues have conducted studies in vitro and in mice that show that e-cigarette aerosols are irritants and cause oxidative stress, which can drive PUD.
While many studies have shown vaping impacts various organs, Ohrin’s study “opens a door” to start looking at the gastrointestinal system, she said.
The study is also a signal to clinicians to “take an accurate inhalant history,” which means asking about vaping, she added.
Ohrin and Crotty Alexander reported no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — , a cross-sectional study found.
The study also found increased risk of PUD among former users of e-cigarettes, reported Albert E. Ohrin, MBChB, MHS, of Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, who presented the study here at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
While cigarette smoking is a known risk factor for PUD, there was little in the literature investigating whether vaping has a similar risk profile, said Ohrin, a first-year internal medicine resident. He told GI & Hepatology News he found e-cigarette users on Reddit discussing worsening PUD and decided to investigate further, especially since vaping is so popular among young people.
E-cigarettes are the most-used tobacco product among middle and high school students. The National Youth Tobacco Survey in the US reported that 1.6 million students (5.9%) vaped in 2024, a decline from 7.7% in 2023. And the number of adults using e-cigarettes is increasing, according to the US CDC. In 2023, 6.5% of adults over age 18 used e-cigarettes, up from 3.7% in 2020.
Ohrin and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adults enrolled in the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program. Participants self-reported e-cigarette use. PUD was defined using validated electronic health record diagnosis codes.
Among the 371,398 participants, 29,373 (8%) reported using e-cigarettes, including 21,277 current users and 8096 former users. E-cigarette users were significantly younger (mean age 45.3 vs 59.3 years; P < .001), more likely to be female, and more likely to report lower education and income (P < .001).
Current e-cigarette users had 27% higher odds of PUD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45), compared to never-users. This was greater than the risk with traditional combustible cigarettes (aOR, 1.19) that was seen in the study.
Former e-cig users had 13% higher odds (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24) compared to never-users, and any e-cigarette use was associated with higher odds of PUD (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) compared to never-use.
Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (aOR, 2.15) and having gastroesophageal reflux disease (aOR, 4.45) presented the most significant PUD risk.
Ohrin said he and his colleagues were surprised to see that people who had stopped using e-cigarettes still had higher odds of PUD, although he pointed out that the researchers did not know the frequency of use or how long users had stopped.
“Now that we know there’s an association, we are going to do more studies on e-cigarettes” to see what the potential harms are, especially on the gastrointestinal system, he told GI & Hepatology News.
“One of the things we are looking to elicit is — is there a dose response?” he said, noting it would take a prospective trial to determine that effect.
‘Opens a Door’ to Looking at the GI System
Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, a professor of medicine and associate division chief of pulmonary, critical care, sleep medicine, and physiology at the University of California, San Diego, said she found the study novel and interesting.
“It’s the first I’ve heard of an association between e-cigarette vaping and peptic ulcer disease,” said Crotty Alexander, who has studied the health effects of e-cigarettes for a decade.
Previous studies have shown that nicotine itself can drive an increase in gastric acid production and decrease healing, which can contribute to PUD, Crotty Alexander told GI & Hepatology News. With combustible cigarettes, it is thought that “the larger drivers of that association are the other things in tobacco smoke, such as tar and carbon monoxide and a million other horrible chemicals,” she said.
Crotty Alexander and her colleagues have conducted studies in vitro and in mice that show that e-cigarette aerosols are irritants and cause oxidative stress, which can drive PUD.
While many studies have shown vaping impacts various organs, Ohrin’s study “opens a door” to start looking at the gastrointestinal system, she said.
The study is also a signal to clinicians to “take an accurate inhalant history,” which means asking about vaping, she added.
Ohrin and Crotty Alexander reported no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — , a cross-sectional study found.
The study also found increased risk of PUD among former users of e-cigarettes, reported Albert E. Ohrin, MBChB, MHS, of Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, who presented the study here at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
While cigarette smoking is a known risk factor for PUD, there was little in the literature investigating whether vaping has a similar risk profile, said Ohrin, a first-year internal medicine resident. He told GI & Hepatology News he found e-cigarette users on Reddit discussing worsening PUD and decided to investigate further, especially since vaping is so popular among young people.
E-cigarettes are the most-used tobacco product among middle and high school students. The National Youth Tobacco Survey in the US reported that 1.6 million students (5.9%) vaped in 2024, a decline from 7.7% in 2023. And the number of adults using e-cigarettes is increasing, according to the US CDC. In 2023, 6.5% of adults over age 18 used e-cigarettes, up from 3.7% in 2020.
Ohrin and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adults enrolled in the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program. Participants self-reported e-cigarette use. PUD was defined using validated electronic health record diagnosis codes.
Among the 371,398 participants, 29,373 (8%) reported using e-cigarettes, including 21,277 current users and 8096 former users. E-cigarette users were significantly younger (mean age 45.3 vs 59.3 years; P < .001), more likely to be female, and more likely to report lower education and income (P < .001).
Current e-cigarette users had 27% higher odds of PUD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45), compared to never-users. This was greater than the risk with traditional combustible cigarettes (aOR, 1.19) that was seen in the study.
Former e-cig users had 13% higher odds (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24) compared to never-users, and any e-cigarette use was associated with higher odds of PUD (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) compared to never-use.
Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (aOR, 2.15) and having gastroesophageal reflux disease (aOR, 4.45) presented the most significant PUD risk.
Ohrin said he and his colleagues were surprised to see that people who had stopped using e-cigarettes still had higher odds of PUD, although he pointed out that the researchers did not know the frequency of use or how long users had stopped.
“Now that we know there’s an association, we are going to do more studies on e-cigarettes” to see what the potential harms are, especially on the gastrointestinal system, he told GI & Hepatology News.
“One of the things we are looking to elicit is — is there a dose response?” he said, noting it would take a prospective trial to determine that effect.
‘Opens a Door’ to Looking at the GI System
Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, a professor of medicine and associate division chief of pulmonary, critical care, sleep medicine, and physiology at the University of California, San Diego, said she found the study novel and interesting.
“It’s the first I’ve heard of an association between e-cigarette vaping and peptic ulcer disease,” said Crotty Alexander, who has studied the health effects of e-cigarettes for a decade.
Previous studies have shown that nicotine itself can drive an increase in gastric acid production and decrease healing, which can contribute to PUD, Crotty Alexander told GI & Hepatology News. With combustible cigarettes, it is thought that “the larger drivers of that association are the other things in tobacco smoke, such as tar and carbon monoxide and a million other horrible chemicals,” she said.
Crotty Alexander and her colleagues have conducted studies in vitro and in mice that show that e-cigarette aerosols are irritants and cause oxidative stress, which can drive PUD.
While many studies have shown vaping impacts various organs, Ohrin’s study “opens a door” to start looking at the gastrointestinal system, she said.
The study is also a signal to clinicians to “take an accurate inhalant history,” which means asking about vaping, she added.
Ohrin and Crotty Alexander reported no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2025
Helping Veterans Ease Into Civilian Life
What does a successful military-to-civilian transition look like? How do we know if a veteran is sinking, treading water, or swimming? Two recent studies by the Penn State University Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness sought to answer to those questions and more while determining how and when is the right time to step in to help a veteran in need.
The research analyzed The Veterans Metrics Initiative data (TVMI). This longitudinal study surveyed 9566 men and women who left active duty in 2016 over 3 years, answering questions about deployment histories, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and exposure to combat. They also reported whether they had symptoms related to anxiety and depression.
The TVMI study found that ACEs predicted poor outcomes early on and when combined with warfare experience dramatically increased the likelihood of mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression; moral injury impacted adjustment to civilian life (the degree varied by gender); and, many veterans have a “growth outlook” as a result of a trauma or crisis they experienced.
The TVMI study found that almost all veterans use transition resources in the first 2 years after military separation. Beyond that, however, those in high-risk categories (eg, PTSD and cumulative trauma experiences) need continued support. This may come in the form of a universal screener and linking it to a navigation infrastructure (eg, AmericaServes), “thereby identifying risk factors early and providing targeted supports, interventions, and components.”
Veterans often face a series of simultaneous challenges as they return to civilian life. Among them include getting used to family and friends again, finding jobs, losing their military identity, structure, and perhaps leaving military friends behind. In addition, veterans are likely dealing with physical and mental health challenges, which can significantly influence how well they readjust to civilian life and lead to inconsistency experiences for each individual.
A 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center found about 40% of veterans who suffered from PTSD said they frequently had difficulty dealing with the lack of structure in civilian life, compared with 5% of those who do not have PTSD. Another survey cited a large majority (78%) of pre-9/11 veterans said their readjustment was very or somewhat easy. However, 26% said adjusting to civilian life was difficult.
In 2011, 4 variables were identified that predicted easy civilian life re-entry: being an officer; having a consistently clear understanding of the missions while in the service; being a college graduate; and, for post-9/11 veterans, attending religious services frequently. Six variables were associated with a diminished probability of an easy transition: having had a traumatic experience; being seriously injured; serving in the post-9/11 era; serving in a combat zone; serving with someone who was killed or injured; and, for post-9/11 veterans, being married while in the service.
The probabilities of an easy re-entry dropped from 82% for those who did not experience a traumatic event to 56% for those who did—the largest change noted in the 2011 study.
The second Penn State study evaluated a model framework with a lifespan development perspective. The study surveyed veterans on their self-reported satisfaction or symptoms in 7 domains of well-being: employment, education, financial, legal problems, social, physical health, and mental health. Within 3 months of separation , 41% of respondents fell into the “problematic” category for the mental health domain. However, by 30 to 33 months postseparation, this proportion dropped to 34%. During the same period, the proportion of veterans in the at risk category increased from 28% at Wave 1 to 37% at Wave 6. About 30% of veterans fell into the successful category for symptoms across the 3 examined waves. Almost 60% were in the successful category across the 3 time points.
Both Penn State studies emphasize the importance of viewing veterans as individuals on their own timelines.
“These findings underscore that the transition to civilian life is not a single moment, but a process influenced by experiences across the life span,” said Mary M. Mitchell, research professor at the Clearinghouse and lead author on the predictors study. “By following veterans over 3 years, we were able to see how patterns emerge that would be invisible in a one-time survey.”
Current conceptualization “assumes that there are commonalities across veterans when evaluating the success of the transition to civilian life,” according to the authors of the framework study. “However, each veteran likely has his or her view of what a successful transition constitutes, and he or she may weigh domains differently when considering his or her own transition.”
The research highlights the need to find ways to encourage veterans to seek help—and not just in the first year, which is often the most stressful. The Pew Research Center survey identified a “significant break from the past,” in that nearly 70% of post-9/11 veterans said their superiors made them feel comfortable about seeking help with emotional issues resulting from their military service.
However, ≤ 8% veterans in the TVMI study used any health programs, even when they screened positive for mental health problems. Veterans who did use counseling services, however, improved their depression symptoms. Engaging veterans at various time points could help keep mental health problems from worsening during—and beyond—the transition.
What does a successful military-to-civilian transition look like? How do we know if a veteran is sinking, treading water, or swimming? Two recent studies by the Penn State University Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness sought to answer to those questions and more while determining how and when is the right time to step in to help a veteran in need.
The research analyzed The Veterans Metrics Initiative data (TVMI). This longitudinal study surveyed 9566 men and women who left active duty in 2016 over 3 years, answering questions about deployment histories, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and exposure to combat. They also reported whether they had symptoms related to anxiety and depression.
The TVMI study found that ACEs predicted poor outcomes early on and when combined with warfare experience dramatically increased the likelihood of mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression; moral injury impacted adjustment to civilian life (the degree varied by gender); and, many veterans have a “growth outlook” as a result of a trauma or crisis they experienced.
The TVMI study found that almost all veterans use transition resources in the first 2 years after military separation. Beyond that, however, those in high-risk categories (eg, PTSD and cumulative trauma experiences) need continued support. This may come in the form of a universal screener and linking it to a navigation infrastructure (eg, AmericaServes), “thereby identifying risk factors early and providing targeted supports, interventions, and components.”
Veterans often face a series of simultaneous challenges as they return to civilian life. Among them include getting used to family and friends again, finding jobs, losing their military identity, structure, and perhaps leaving military friends behind. In addition, veterans are likely dealing with physical and mental health challenges, which can significantly influence how well they readjust to civilian life and lead to inconsistency experiences for each individual.
A 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center found about 40% of veterans who suffered from PTSD said they frequently had difficulty dealing with the lack of structure in civilian life, compared with 5% of those who do not have PTSD. Another survey cited a large majority (78%) of pre-9/11 veterans said their readjustment was very or somewhat easy. However, 26% said adjusting to civilian life was difficult.
In 2011, 4 variables were identified that predicted easy civilian life re-entry: being an officer; having a consistently clear understanding of the missions while in the service; being a college graduate; and, for post-9/11 veterans, attending religious services frequently. Six variables were associated with a diminished probability of an easy transition: having had a traumatic experience; being seriously injured; serving in the post-9/11 era; serving in a combat zone; serving with someone who was killed or injured; and, for post-9/11 veterans, being married while in the service.
The probabilities of an easy re-entry dropped from 82% for those who did not experience a traumatic event to 56% for those who did—the largest change noted in the 2011 study.
The second Penn State study evaluated a model framework with a lifespan development perspective. The study surveyed veterans on their self-reported satisfaction or symptoms in 7 domains of well-being: employment, education, financial, legal problems, social, physical health, and mental health. Within 3 months of separation , 41% of respondents fell into the “problematic” category for the mental health domain. However, by 30 to 33 months postseparation, this proportion dropped to 34%. During the same period, the proportion of veterans in the at risk category increased from 28% at Wave 1 to 37% at Wave 6. About 30% of veterans fell into the successful category for symptoms across the 3 examined waves. Almost 60% were in the successful category across the 3 time points.
Both Penn State studies emphasize the importance of viewing veterans as individuals on their own timelines.
“These findings underscore that the transition to civilian life is not a single moment, but a process influenced by experiences across the life span,” said Mary M. Mitchell, research professor at the Clearinghouse and lead author on the predictors study. “By following veterans over 3 years, we were able to see how patterns emerge that would be invisible in a one-time survey.”
Current conceptualization “assumes that there are commonalities across veterans when evaluating the success of the transition to civilian life,” according to the authors of the framework study. “However, each veteran likely has his or her view of what a successful transition constitutes, and he or she may weigh domains differently when considering his or her own transition.”
The research highlights the need to find ways to encourage veterans to seek help—and not just in the first year, which is often the most stressful. The Pew Research Center survey identified a “significant break from the past,” in that nearly 70% of post-9/11 veterans said their superiors made them feel comfortable about seeking help with emotional issues resulting from their military service.
However, ≤ 8% veterans in the TVMI study used any health programs, even when they screened positive for mental health problems. Veterans who did use counseling services, however, improved their depression symptoms. Engaging veterans at various time points could help keep mental health problems from worsening during—and beyond—the transition.
What does a successful military-to-civilian transition look like? How do we know if a veteran is sinking, treading water, or swimming? Two recent studies by the Penn State University Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness sought to answer to those questions and more while determining how and when is the right time to step in to help a veteran in need.
The research analyzed The Veterans Metrics Initiative data (TVMI). This longitudinal study surveyed 9566 men and women who left active duty in 2016 over 3 years, answering questions about deployment histories, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and exposure to combat. They also reported whether they had symptoms related to anxiety and depression.
The TVMI study found that ACEs predicted poor outcomes early on and when combined with warfare experience dramatically increased the likelihood of mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression; moral injury impacted adjustment to civilian life (the degree varied by gender); and, many veterans have a “growth outlook” as a result of a trauma or crisis they experienced.
The TVMI study found that almost all veterans use transition resources in the first 2 years after military separation. Beyond that, however, those in high-risk categories (eg, PTSD and cumulative trauma experiences) need continued support. This may come in the form of a universal screener and linking it to a navigation infrastructure (eg, AmericaServes), “thereby identifying risk factors early and providing targeted supports, interventions, and components.”
Veterans often face a series of simultaneous challenges as they return to civilian life. Among them include getting used to family and friends again, finding jobs, losing their military identity, structure, and perhaps leaving military friends behind. In addition, veterans are likely dealing with physical and mental health challenges, which can significantly influence how well they readjust to civilian life and lead to inconsistency experiences for each individual.
A 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center found about 40% of veterans who suffered from PTSD said they frequently had difficulty dealing with the lack of structure in civilian life, compared with 5% of those who do not have PTSD. Another survey cited a large majority (78%) of pre-9/11 veterans said their readjustment was very or somewhat easy. However, 26% said adjusting to civilian life was difficult.
In 2011, 4 variables were identified that predicted easy civilian life re-entry: being an officer; having a consistently clear understanding of the missions while in the service; being a college graduate; and, for post-9/11 veterans, attending religious services frequently. Six variables were associated with a diminished probability of an easy transition: having had a traumatic experience; being seriously injured; serving in the post-9/11 era; serving in a combat zone; serving with someone who was killed or injured; and, for post-9/11 veterans, being married while in the service.
The probabilities of an easy re-entry dropped from 82% for those who did not experience a traumatic event to 56% for those who did—the largest change noted in the 2011 study.
The second Penn State study evaluated a model framework with a lifespan development perspective. The study surveyed veterans on their self-reported satisfaction or symptoms in 7 domains of well-being: employment, education, financial, legal problems, social, physical health, and mental health. Within 3 months of separation , 41% of respondents fell into the “problematic” category for the mental health domain. However, by 30 to 33 months postseparation, this proportion dropped to 34%. During the same period, the proportion of veterans in the at risk category increased from 28% at Wave 1 to 37% at Wave 6. About 30% of veterans fell into the successful category for symptoms across the 3 examined waves. Almost 60% were in the successful category across the 3 time points.
Both Penn State studies emphasize the importance of viewing veterans as individuals on their own timelines.
“These findings underscore that the transition to civilian life is not a single moment, but a process influenced by experiences across the life span,” said Mary M. Mitchell, research professor at the Clearinghouse and lead author on the predictors study. “By following veterans over 3 years, we were able to see how patterns emerge that would be invisible in a one-time survey.”
Current conceptualization “assumes that there are commonalities across veterans when evaluating the success of the transition to civilian life,” according to the authors of the framework study. “However, each veteran likely has his or her view of what a successful transition constitutes, and he or she may weigh domains differently when considering his or her own transition.”
The research highlights the need to find ways to encourage veterans to seek help—and not just in the first year, which is often the most stressful. The Pew Research Center survey identified a “significant break from the past,” in that nearly 70% of post-9/11 veterans said their superiors made them feel comfortable about seeking help with emotional issues resulting from their military service.
However, ≤ 8% veterans in the TVMI study used any health programs, even when they screened positive for mental health problems. Veterans who did use counseling services, however, improved their depression symptoms. Engaging veterans at various time points could help keep mental health problems from worsening during—and beyond—the transition.
'Energy Insecurity' Tied to Anxiety, Depression Risk
'Energy Insecurity' Tied to Anxiety, Depression Risk
TOPLINE:
Energy insecurity, the inability to meet household energy needs, was associated with more than twice the odds of having depression and anxiety symptoms than energy security in US adults, a new cross-sectional study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Using data from the US Census Bureau's online Household Pulse Survey, administered between 2022 and 2024, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study with a weighted population of > 187 million US adults (51% women; 64% White, 16% Hispanic, 10% Black, and 5% Asian). About a quarter of the population was in each of 4 age groups: 18-34 years, 35-49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥ 65 years.
- Three indicators of energy insecurity—inability to pay energy bills, maintaining unsafe/unhealthy home temperatures, and forgoing expenses on basic necessities to pay energy bills—were assessed individually and as a composite measure.
- Mental health was assessed using modified versions of the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale for anxiety.
- The analysis was adjusted for other social determinants of health, including unemployment, housing instability, and food insecurity. Covariates included a wide range of factors, such as age, educational level, sex, and annual household income.
TAKEAWAY:
- In all, > 43% of the population reported having ≥ 1 form of energy security; around 22% reported being unable to pay energy bills, 22% maintained unsafe home temperatures, and nearly 34% forewent spending on basic necessities to pay energy bills.
- Individuals who gave up spending on basic necessities to pay energy bills had higher odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79) and depression (aOR, 1.74) than those who did not.
- Adults with energy insecurity on the composite measure had higher odds for anxiety (aOR, 2.29) and depression (aOR, 2.31) than those with energy security.
- Food insecurity was also associated with poorer mental health, with higher odds for symptoms of depression (aOR, 2.05) and anxiety (aOR, 2.07).
IN PRACTICE:
"Despite its high prevalence, energy insecurity remains underrecognized in public health and policy intervention strategies," the investigators wrote.
"These findings suggest that energy insecurity is a widespread and important factor associated with mental health symptoms and may warrant consideration in efforts to reduce adverse mental health outcomes," they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Michelle Graf, PhD, Carter School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. It was published online on October 27 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional nature of the data limited causal interference and increased the possibility of reverse causality. The questionnaire captured subjective interpretations of unsafe and unhealthy indoor temperatures, which may have varied among respondents. Additionally, the recall periods for energy insecurity and mental health outcomes were different.
DISCLOSURES:
The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Energy insecurity, the inability to meet household energy needs, was associated with more than twice the odds of having depression and anxiety symptoms than energy security in US adults, a new cross-sectional study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Using data from the US Census Bureau's online Household Pulse Survey, administered between 2022 and 2024, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study with a weighted population of > 187 million US adults (51% women; 64% White, 16% Hispanic, 10% Black, and 5% Asian). About a quarter of the population was in each of 4 age groups: 18-34 years, 35-49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥ 65 years.
- Three indicators of energy insecurity—inability to pay energy bills, maintaining unsafe/unhealthy home temperatures, and forgoing expenses on basic necessities to pay energy bills—were assessed individually and as a composite measure.
- Mental health was assessed using modified versions of the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale for anxiety.
- The analysis was adjusted for other social determinants of health, including unemployment, housing instability, and food insecurity. Covariates included a wide range of factors, such as age, educational level, sex, and annual household income.
TAKEAWAY:
- In all, > 43% of the population reported having ≥ 1 form of energy security; around 22% reported being unable to pay energy bills, 22% maintained unsafe home temperatures, and nearly 34% forewent spending on basic necessities to pay energy bills.
- Individuals who gave up spending on basic necessities to pay energy bills had higher odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79) and depression (aOR, 1.74) than those who did not.
- Adults with energy insecurity on the composite measure had higher odds for anxiety (aOR, 2.29) and depression (aOR, 2.31) than those with energy security.
- Food insecurity was also associated with poorer mental health, with higher odds for symptoms of depression (aOR, 2.05) and anxiety (aOR, 2.07).
IN PRACTICE:
"Despite its high prevalence, energy insecurity remains underrecognized in public health and policy intervention strategies," the investigators wrote.
"These findings suggest that energy insecurity is a widespread and important factor associated with mental health symptoms and may warrant consideration in efforts to reduce adverse mental health outcomes," they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Michelle Graf, PhD, Carter School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. It was published online on October 27 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional nature of the data limited causal interference and increased the possibility of reverse causality. The questionnaire captured subjective interpretations of unsafe and unhealthy indoor temperatures, which may have varied among respondents. Additionally, the recall periods for energy insecurity and mental health outcomes were different.
DISCLOSURES:
The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Energy insecurity, the inability to meet household energy needs, was associated with more than twice the odds of having depression and anxiety symptoms than energy security in US adults, a new cross-sectional study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Using data from the US Census Bureau's online Household Pulse Survey, administered between 2022 and 2024, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study with a weighted population of > 187 million US adults (51% women; 64% White, 16% Hispanic, 10% Black, and 5% Asian). About a quarter of the population was in each of 4 age groups: 18-34 years, 35-49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥ 65 years.
- Three indicators of energy insecurity—inability to pay energy bills, maintaining unsafe/unhealthy home temperatures, and forgoing expenses on basic necessities to pay energy bills—were assessed individually and as a composite measure.
- Mental health was assessed using modified versions of the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale for anxiety.
- The analysis was adjusted for other social determinants of health, including unemployment, housing instability, and food insecurity. Covariates included a wide range of factors, such as age, educational level, sex, and annual household income.
TAKEAWAY:
- In all, > 43% of the population reported having ≥ 1 form of energy security; around 22% reported being unable to pay energy bills, 22% maintained unsafe home temperatures, and nearly 34% forewent spending on basic necessities to pay energy bills.
- Individuals who gave up spending on basic necessities to pay energy bills had higher odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79) and depression (aOR, 1.74) than those who did not.
- Adults with energy insecurity on the composite measure had higher odds for anxiety (aOR, 2.29) and depression (aOR, 2.31) than those with energy security.
- Food insecurity was also associated with poorer mental health, with higher odds for symptoms of depression (aOR, 2.05) and anxiety (aOR, 2.07).
IN PRACTICE:
"Despite its high prevalence, energy insecurity remains underrecognized in public health and policy intervention strategies," the investigators wrote.
"These findings suggest that energy insecurity is a widespread and important factor associated with mental health symptoms and may warrant consideration in efforts to reduce adverse mental health outcomes," they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Michelle Graf, PhD, Carter School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. It was published online on October 27 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional nature of the data limited causal interference and increased the possibility of reverse causality. The questionnaire captured subjective interpretations of unsafe and unhealthy indoor temperatures, which may have varied among respondents. Additionally, the recall periods for energy insecurity and mental health outcomes were different.
DISCLOSURES:
The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
'Energy Insecurity' Tied to Anxiety, Depression Risk
'Energy Insecurity' Tied to Anxiety, Depression Risk
What Drives Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers?
TOPLINE:
A comprehensive review of 92 studies found that 15% to 20% of lung cancers occurred among nonsmokers and were associated with environmental and germline risk factors. These cancers frequently harbored actionable genomic drivers, and targeted EGFR and ALK therapies produced significant diseasefree survival (DFS) and overall survival benefits.
METHODOLOGY:
- Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, causing about 1.8 million deaths in 2022, with smoking remaining the predominant risk factor. However, the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers (those who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) is rising, varies by sex and geography, and is linked to environmental exposures and family history. The misperception that lung cancer is almost invariably caused by smoking may delay assessment and diagnosis.
- Researchers conducted a review of 92 studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers: 6 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 16 randomized clinical trials, eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, four observational or case-control studies, 13 genomic studies, and 35 other studies.
- Overall, lung cancer among nonsmokers accounted for 15% to 20% of all lung cancer cases. Most lung cancers in nonsmokers were adenocarcinomas (60% to 80%), with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years in this group compared with 70 years in people with a history of smoking.
- Data analysis from three US hospital networks showed that the proportion of lung cancer among nonsmokers increased from 8.0% to 14.9% between 1990 and 2013. A pooled analysis of seven Finnish cohorts reported an absolute increase in lung cancer among nonsmokers from 6.9 per 100,000 person-years in 1972 to 12.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2015.
- The age-adjusted incidence rate of lung cancer in the US between 2000 and 2013 was 17.5 per 100,000 individuals among Asian female nonsmokers compared with 10.1 per 100,000 among non-Hispanic White female nonsmokers.
TAKEAWAY:
- Environmental and occupational risk factors were secondhand smoke, residential radon, outdoor and household air pollution (PM2.5), asbestos and silica exposure, and prior thoracic radiotherapy. Having a first-degree relative with lung cancer increased the risk of developing lung cancer, and genome-wide association studies identified susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk in nonsmokers.
- Family history and inherited susceptibility increased lung cancer risk in never smokers (odds ratio [OR] for lung cancer in those with a first–degree relative, 1.51), and clonal hematopoiesis was also associated with higher risk (OR, 1.43). Importantly, tumors in nonsmokers were frequently driven by actionable somatic alterations (EGFR mutations, 40% to 60% in nonsmokers compared with 10% in smokers) and enrichment of ALK/ROS1/RET/ERBB2/NTRK/NRG1 fusions; 78% to 92% of adenocarcinomas in nonsmokers harbored actionable drivers (compared with 49.5% in ever smokers), and nonsmokers had a substantially lower tumor mutational burden (10–fold lower).
- Similar to individuals with a history of smoking, nonsmokers with lung cancer presented with cough, pain, dyspnea, or weight loss or had disease detected incidentally. Surgical resection remained the preferred treatment for anatomically resectable lung cancer (stages I-III) in medically eligible patients, with follow-up CT screening recommended every 6 months for 2 to 3 years and then annually.
- Targeted adjuvant therapy substantially improved outcomes for resected EGFR–mutant or ALK–rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four-year DFS was increased to 70% with osimertinib compared with 29% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23) and 5–year overall survival was increased to 85% compared with 73% (HR, 0.49). Two–year DFS was 93.8% with alectinib compared with 63% with placebo (HR, 0.24). In unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC, median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with adjuvant osimertinib compared with 5.6 months with placebo. For resected ALKpositive disease, 2–year DFS was 93.8% with adjuvant alectinib compared with 63.0% with chemotherapy (HR, 0.24).
- However, singleagent single agent programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors demonstrated limited efficacy in EGFR or ALK–driven tumors, and benefit was attenuated in never smokers. Regarding screening and early detection, the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend lowdose CT screening for nonsmokers, whereas Taiwan implemented a biennial screening program for selected nonsmoking high–risk groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Among patients with lung cancer, nonsmoking individuals are more likely to have genomic alterations, such as EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements, and these patients have improved survival when treated with TKIs compared with chemotherapy,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Cian Murphy, PhD, Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, England, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
Becausesmoking history was often not included in many databases, cancer registries, and trials, the incidence and prevalence of lung cancer in nonsmokers could not be accurately determined. Additionally, accurate quantification of environmental exposures, such as air pollution, presented significant challenges. The quality of the evidence was not formally evaluated, and some relevant articles may have been missed in the literature review.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from multiple organizations, including the Rosetrees Trust, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A comprehensive review of 92 studies found that 15% to 20% of lung cancers occurred among nonsmokers and were associated with environmental and germline risk factors. These cancers frequently harbored actionable genomic drivers, and targeted EGFR and ALK therapies produced significant diseasefree survival (DFS) and overall survival benefits.
METHODOLOGY:
- Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, causing about 1.8 million deaths in 2022, with smoking remaining the predominant risk factor. However, the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers (those who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) is rising, varies by sex and geography, and is linked to environmental exposures and family history. The misperception that lung cancer is almost invariably caused by smoking may delay assessment and diagnosis.
- Researchers conducted a review of 92 studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers: 6 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 16 randomized clinical trials, eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, four observational or case-control studies, 13 genomic studies, and 35 other studies.
- Overall, lung cancer among nonsmokers accounted for 15% to 20% of all lung cancer cases. Most lung cancers in nonsmokers were adenocarcinomas (60% to 80%), with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years in this group compared with 70 years in people with a history of smoking.
- Data analysis from three US hospital networks showed that the proportion of lung cancer among nonsmokers increased from 8.0% to 14.9% between 1990 and 2013. A pooled analysis of seven Finnish cohorts reported an absolute increase in lung cancer among nonsmokers from 6.9 per 100,000 person-years in 1972 to 12.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2015.
- The age-adjusted incidence rate of lung cancer in the US between 2000 and 2013 was 17.5 per 100,000 individuals among Asian female nonsmokers compared with 10.1 per 100,000 among non-Hispanic White female nonsmokers.
TAKEAWAY:
- Environmental and occupational risk factors were secondhand smoke, residential radon, outdoor and household air pollution (PM2.5), asbestos and silica exposure, and prior thoracic radiotherapy. Having a first-degree relative with lung cancer increased the risk of developing lung cancer, and genome-wide association studies identified susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk in nonsmokers.
- Family history and inherited susceptibility increased lung cancer risk in never smokers (odds ratio [OR] for lung cancer in those with a first–degree relative, 1.51), and clonal hematopoiesis was also associated with higher risk (OR, 1.43). Importantly, tumors in nonsmokers were frequently driven by actionable somatic alterations (EGFR mutations, 40% to 60% in nonsmokers compared with 10% in smokers) and enrichment of ALK/ROS1/RET/ERBB2/NTRK/NRG1 fusions; 78% to 92% of adenocarcinomas in nonsmokers harbored actionable drivers (compared with 49.5% in ever smokers), and nonsmokers had a substantially lower tumor mutational burden (10–fold lower).
- Similar to individuals with a history of smoking, nonsmokers with lung cancer presented with cough, pain, dyspnea, or weight loss or had disease detected incidentally. Surgical resection remained the preferred treatment for anatomically resectable lung cancer (stages I-III) in medically eligible patients, with follow-up CT screening recommended every 6 months for 2 to 3 years and then annually.
- Targeted adjuvant therapy substantially improved outcomes for resected EGFR–mutant or ALK–rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four-year DFS was increased to 70% with osimertinib compared with 29% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23) and 5–year overall survival was increased to 85% compared with 73% (HR, 0.49). Two–year DFS was 93.8% with alectinib compared with 63% with placebo (HR, 0.24). In unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC, median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with adjuvant osimertinib compared with 5.6 months with placebo. For resected ALKpositive disease, 2–year DFS was 93.8% with adjuvant alectinib compared with 63.0% with chemotherapy (HR, 0.24).
- However, singleagent single agent programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors demonstrated limited efficacy in EGFR or ALK–driven tumors, and benefit was attenuated in never smokers. Regarding screening and early detection, the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend lowdose CT screening for nonsmokers, whereas Taiwan implemented a biennial screening program for selected nonsmoking high–risk groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Among patients with lung cancer, nonsmoking individuals are more likely to have genomic alterations, such as EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements, and these patients have improved survival when treated with TKIs compared with chemotherapy,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Cian Murphy, PhD, Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, England, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
Becausesmoking history was often not included in many databases, cancer registries, and trials, the incidence and prevalence of lung cancer in nonsmokers could not be accurately determined. Additionally, accurate quantification of environmental exposures, such as air pollution, presented significant challenges. The quality of the evidence was not formally evaluated, and some relevant articles may have been missed in the literature review.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from multiple organizations, including the Rosetrees Trust, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A comprehensive review of 92 studies found that 15% to 20% of lung cancers occurred among nonsmokers and were associated with environmental and germline risk factors. These cancers frequently harbored actionable genomic drivers, and targeted EGFR and ALK therapies produced significant diseasefree survival (DFS) and overall survival benefits.
METHODOLOGY:
- Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, causing about 1.8 million deaths in 2022, with smoking remaining the predominant risk factor. However, the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers (those who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) is rising, varies by sex and geography, and is linked to environmental exposures and family history. The misperception that lung cancer is almost invariably caused by smoking may delay assessment and diagnosis.
- Researchers conducted a review of 92 studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers: 6 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 16 randomized clinical trials, eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, four observational or case-control studies, 13 genomic studies, and 35 other studies.
- Overall, lung cancer among nonsmokers accounted for 15% to 20% of all lung cancer cases. Most lung cancers in nonsmokers were adenocarcinomas (60% to 80%), with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years in this group compared with 70 years in people with a history of smoking.
- Data analysis from three US hospital networks showed that the proportion of lung cancer among nonsmokers increased from 8.0% to 14.9% between 1990 and 2013. A pooled analysis of seven Finnish cohorts reported an absolute increase in lung cancer among nonsmokers from 6.9 per 100,000 person-years in 1972 to 12.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2015.
- The age-adjusted incidence rate of lung cancer in the US between 2000 and 2013 was 17.5 per 100,000 individuals among Asian female nonsmokers compared with 10.1 per 100,000 among non-Hispanic White female nonsmokers.
TAKEAWAY:
- Environmental and occupational risk factors were secondhand smoke, residential radon, outdoor and household air pollution (PM2.5), asbestos and silica exposure, and prior thoracic radiotherapy. Having a first-degree relative with lung cancer increased the risk of developing lung cancer, and genome-wide association studies identified susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk in nonsmokers.
- Family history and inherited susceptibility increased lung cancer risk in never smokers (odds ratio [OR] for lung cancer in those with a first–degree relative, 1.51), and clonal hematopoiesis was also associated with higher risk (OR, 1.43). Importantly, tumors in nonsmokers were frequently driven by actionable somatic alterations (EGFR mutations, 40% to 60% in nonsmokers compared with 10% in smokers) and enrichment of ALK/ROS1/RET/ERBB2/NTRK/NRG1 fusions; 78% to 92% of adenocarcinomas in nonsmokers harbored actionable drivers (compared with 49.5% in ever smokers), and nonsmokers had a substantially lower tumor mutational burden (10–fold lower).
- Similar to individuals with a history of smoking, nonsmokers with lung cancer presented with cough, pain, dyspnea, or weight loss or had disease detected incidentally. Surgical resection remained the preferred treatment for anatomically resectable lung cancer (stages I-III) in medically eligible patients, with follow-up CT screening recommended every 6 months for 2 to 3 years and then annually.
- Targeted adjuvant therapy substantially improved outcomes for resected EGFR–mutant or ALK–rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four-year DFS was increased to 70% with osimertinib compared with 29% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23) and 5–year overall survival was increased to 85% compared with 73% (HR, 0.49). Two–year DFS was 93.8% with alectinib compared with 63% with placebo (HR, 0.24). In unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC, median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with adjuvant osimertinib compared with 5.6 months with placebo. For resected ALKpositive disease, 2–year DFS was 93.8% with adjuvant alectinib compared with 63.0% with chemotherapy (HR, 0.24).
- However, singleagent single agent programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors demonstrated limited efficacy in EGFR or ALK–driven tumors, and benefit was attenuated in never smokers. Regarding screening and early detection, the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend lowdose CT screening for nonsmokers, whereas Taiwan implemented a biennial screening program for selected nonsmoking high–risk groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Among patients with lung cancer, nonsmoking individuals are more likely to have genomic alterations, such as EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements, and these patients have improved survival when treated with TKIs compared with chemotherapy,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Cian Murphy, PhD, Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, England, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
Becausesmoking history was often not included in many databases, cancer registries, and trials, the incidence and prevalence of lung cancer in nonsmokers could not be accurately determined. Additionally, accurate quantification of environmental exposures, such as air pollution, presented significant challenges. The quality of the evidence was not formally evaluated, and some relevant articles may have been missed in the literature review.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from multiple organizations, including the Rosetrees Trust, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from and having other ties with various sources. Full disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NICE Endorses Oral Alternative to Chemo in Prostate Cancer
A faster, oral alternative to docetaxel is set to reach NHS clinics after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended darolutamide (Nubeqa, Bayer) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are unable to receive or tolerate chemotherapy.
Detailed in NICE’s final draft guidance, the decision will make darolutamide available through the NHS in England and Wales to approximately 6000 patients, offering a new oral therapy for those who with limited alternatives to docetaxel or other androgen-receptor inhibitors.
New Option for Chemo-Ineligible Patients
Darolutamide functions by blocking hormones that fuel cancer growth, specifically depriving prostate cancer cells of testosterone required for multiplication and spread. Patients take two tablets twice daily alongside standard ADT.
Peter Johnson, national clinical director for cancer at NHS England, welcomed the decision and expects this approval to give clinicians and their patients “more flexibility to choose the approach best suited to individual circumstances and clinical needs.”
The guidance was finalised 5 weeks ahead of the standard review timeline, underscoring NICE’s commitment to accelerating access to effective prostate cancer treatments.
Clinical Trial Evidence
The NICE’s decision was supported by evidence from the phase 3 ARASENS trial (N = 1306).
The results showed that adding darolutamide to ADT and docetaxel significantly improved overall survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, reducing the risk for death by 32% compared with ADT and docetaxel alone. Progression-free outcomes, measured by time to castration-resistant disease or death, also favoured darolutamide.
A NICE network meta-analysis of the TITAN, ARCHES, LATITUDE, and STAMPEDE trials suggested that combining ADT with androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors such as apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone provides comparable survival benefits in this disease setting.
Cost and Implementation
NICE determined that darolutamide plus ADT delivers similar or lower overall costs to the NHS compared with apalutamide plus ADT. The list price is £4040.00 for a 28-day supply (112 × 300-mg tablets), though Bayer has agreed to a confidential commercial discount.
The guidance requires healthcare providers to use the least expensive suitable treatment option, considering administration costs, dosages, price per dose, and commercial arrangements when choosing between darolutamide plus ADT and apalutamide plus ADT.
NHS England and integrated care boards must provide funding within 30 days of final publication, with routine commissioning beginning after this interim period.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A faster, oral alternative to docetaxel is set to reach NHS clinics after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended darolutamide (Nubeqa, Bayer) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are unable to receive or tolerate chemotherapy.
Detailed in NICE’s final draft guidance, the decision will make darolutamide available through the NHS in England and Wales to approximately 6000 patients, offering a new oral therapy for those who with limited alternatives to docetaxel or other androgen-receptor inhibitors.
New Option for Chemo-Ineligible Patients
Darolutamide functions by blocking hormones that fuel cancer growth, specifically depriving prostate cancer cells of testosterone required for multiplication and spread. Patients take two tablets twice daily alongside standard ADT.
Peter Johnson, national clinical director for cancer at NHS England, welcomed the decision and expects this approval to give clinicians and their patients “more flexibility to choose the approach best suited to individual circumstances and clinical needs.”
The guidance was finalised 5 weeks ahead of the standard review timeline, underscoring NICE’s commitment to accelerating access to effective prostate cancer treatments.
Clinical Trial Evidence
The NICE’s decision was supported by evidence from the phase 3 ARASENS trial (N = 1306).
The results showed that adding darolutamide to ADT and docetaxel significantly improved overall survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, reducing the risk for death by 32% compared with ADT and docetaxel alone. Progression-free outcomes, measured by time to castration-resistant disease or death, also favoured darolutamide.
A NICE network meta-analysis of the TITAN, ARCHES, LATITUDE, and STAMPEDE trials suggested that combining ADT with androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors such as apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone provides comparable survival benefits in this disease setting.
Cost and Implementation
NICE determined that darolutamide plus ADT delivers similar or lower overall costs to the NHS compared with apalutamide plus ADT. The list price is £4040.00 for a 28-day supply (112 × 300-mg tablets), though Bayer has agreed to a confidential commercial discount.
The guidance requires healthcare providers to use the least expensive suitable treatment option, considering administration costs, dosages, price per dose, and commercial arrangements when choosing between darolutamide plus ADT and apalutamide plus ADT.
NHS England and integrated care boards must provide funding within 30 days of final publication, with routine commissioning beginning after this interim period.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A faster, oral alternative to docetaxel is set to reach NHS clinics after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended darolutamide (Nubeqa, Bayer) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are unable to receive or tolerate chemotherapy.
Detailed in NICE’s final draft guidance, the decision will make darolutamide available through the NHS in England and Wales to approximately 6000 patients, offering a new oral therapy for those who with limited alternatives to docetaxel or other androgen-receptor inhibitors.
New Option for Chemo-Ineligible Patients
Darolutamide functions by blocking hormones that fuel cancer growth, specifically depriving prostate cancer cells of testosterone required for multiplication and spread. Patients take two tablets twice daily alongside standard ADT.
Peter Johnson, national clinical director for cancer at NHS England, welcomed the decision and expects this approval to give clinicians and their patients “more flexibility to choose the approach best suited to individual circumstances and clinical needs.”
The guidance was finalised 5 weeks ahead of the standard review timeline, underscoring NICE’s commitment to accelerating access to effective prostate cancer treatments.
Clinical Trial Evidence
The NICE’s decision was supported by evidence from the phase 3 ARASENS trial (N = 1306).
The results showed that adding darolutamide to ADT and docetaxel significantly improved overall survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, reducing the risk for death by 32% compared with ADT and docetaxel alone. Progression-free outcomes, measured by time to castration-resistant disease or death, also favoured darolutamide.
A NICE network meta-analysis of the TITAN, ARCHES, LATITUDE, and STAMPEDE trials suggested that combining ADT with androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors such as apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone provides comparable survival benefits in this disease setting.
Cost and Implementation
NICE determined that darolutamide plus ADT delivers similar or lower overall costs to the NHS compared with apalutamide plus ADT. The list price is £4040.00 for a 28-day supply (112 × 300-mg tablets), though Bayer has agreed to a confidential commercial discount.
The guidance requires healthcare providers to use the least expensive suitable treatment option, considering administration costs, dosages, price per dose, and commercial arrangements when choosing between darolutamide plus ADT and apalutamide plus ADT.
NHS England and integrated care boards must provide funding within 30 days of final publication, with routine commissioning beginning after this interim period.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is High Quality VA Psychiatric Care Keeping Readmissions Rates Low?
Repeated and frequent hospitalizations—sometimes referred to as the revolving door phenomenon— are a particular risk for patients during the first month after discharge. Early psychiatric readmission is a standard indicator of adverse outcomes. However, the results
The quality of previous care has long been thought to be a driver of readmission. If that’s the case, a 2025 study suggests that on average veterans received high-quality inpatient psychiatric services at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the nation and that may have been key to keeping readmissions down. Analyzing data from 88,954 veterans who received care at VHA Inpatient Mental Health (IMH) services, the researchers found a “relatively low” rate of readmission within 30 days: 7.1% compared with 8% to 31% of other psychiatric patients in the US. With 40,220 unique patients receiving IMH care per year on average between October 2019 and September 2022, a 7.1% readmission rate means > 2800 30-day readmissions annually.
Research has found that veterans who receive care at the VA have better outcomes than those treated in the private sector. Part of that has to do with practitioners who understand the unique needs of their patients. Veterans may have posttraumatic stress disorder or multiple diagnoses, such as depression, panic disorder, and a substance use disorder. Their mental health issues may also coexist with physical health problems, such as traumatic brain injuries due to explosions.
“If you’re trained at the VA, you learn something important about veteran mental health care that you’ll never get if you’re trained someplace else,” Rodney R. Baker, PhD, retired mental health director and chief of psychology for the South Texas VA Health Care System, said recently. Community clinicians may not know how to collect and incorporate information about a patient’s military history, including details about deployments, combat exposure, injuries, military sexual trauma, and unit culture. They may also lack expertise in navigating the transition between military and veteran life, now considered a critical adjustment period.
“This is a unique population,” said Conwell Smith, the American Psychological Association’s deputy chief of military and veteran policy. “Sending veterans out to the community without requiring that mental health care providers understand them is concerning.”
IMH services aim to stabilize mental health crises and improve veterans’ functioning through patient-centered, evidence-based, and recovery-oriented approaches shown to reduce readmission rates. Treatment generally involves a minimum of 4 hours of interdisciplinary, therapeutic programming each day. And upon discharge, the inpatient care team facilitates the patient’s transition to appropriate outpatient services.
Follow-up care, particularly during the first 30 days, has proved critical in reducing readmissions. In studies that have analyzed postdischarge interventions (psychoeducation, mentoring, community-based hospital treatment, use of continuous follow-up and compulsory community treatment), all found fewer hospitalizations when compared to a control group, or a smaller number of admissions after the intervention.
Mental health care for veterans should be provided by experienced practitioners—but those practitioners are leaving VA. According to the VA Office of Inspector General, 57% of medical centers report a shortage of psychologists. And according to the VA’s monthly Workforce Dashboard, the VHA lost 234 psychologists in the first 9 months of 2025. The VA has also announced plans to cut 30,000 jobs by the end of the year and impose caps on staff at every medical center.
“This approach locks in permanent VA understaffing just as demand for mental health services is projected to continue growing through 2030,” said Russell Lemle, PhD, a clinical psychologist and senior policy analyst for the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. “The private sector can’t fill this gap either—over a third of Americans live in areas already facing mental health professional shortages. That’s not taking care of our veterans.
“Unless actions are taken quickly to reverse the trend, its mental health services could easily diminish substantially within 10 to 20 years.”
Repeated and frequent hospitalizations—sometimes referred to as the revolving door phenomenon— are a particular risk for patients during the first month after discharge. Early psychiatric readmission is a standard indicator of adverse outcomes. However, the results
The quality of previous care has long been thought to be a driver of readmission. If that’s the case, a 2025 study suggests that on average veterans received high-quality inpatient psychiatric services at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the nation and that may have been key to keeping readmissions down. Analyzing data from 88,954 veterans who received care at VHA Inpatient Mental Health (IMH) services, the researchers found a “relatively low” rate of readmission within 30 days: 7.1% compared with 8% to 31% of other psychiatric patients in the US. With 40,220 unique patients receiving IMH care per year on average between October 2019 and September 2022, a 7.1% readmission rate means > 2800 30-day readmissions annually.
Research has found that veterans who receive care at the VA have better outcomes than those treated in the private sector. Part of that has to do with practitioners who understand the unique needs of their patients. Veterans may have posttraumatic stress disorder or multiple diagnoses, such as depression, panic disorder, and a substance use disorder. Their mental health issues may also coexist with physical health problems, such as traumatic brain injuries due to explosions.
“If you’re trained at the VA, you learn something important about veteran mental health care that you’ll never get if you’re trained someplace else,” Rodney R. Baker, PhD, retired mental health director and chief of psychology for the South Texas VA Health Care System, said recently. Community clinicians may not know how to collect and incorporate information about a patient’s military history, including details about deployments, combat exposure, injuries, military sexual trauma, and unit culture. They may also lack expertise in navigating the transition between military and veteran life, now considered a critical adjustment period.
“This is a unique population,” said Conwell Smith, the American Psychological Association’s deputy chief of military and veteran policy. “Sending veterans out to the community without requiring that mental health care providers understand them is concerning.”
IMH services aim to stabilize mental health crises and improve veterans’ functioning through patient-centered, evidence-based, and recovery-oriented approaches shown to reduce readmission rates. Treatment generally involves a minimum of 4 hours of interdisciplinary, therapeutic programming each day. And upon discharge, the inpatient care team facilitates the patient’s transition to appropriate outpatient services.
Follow-up care, particularly during the first 30 days, has proved critical in reducing readmissions. In studies that have analyzed postdischarge interventions (psychoeducation, mentoring, community-based hospital treatment, use of continuous follow-up and compulsory community treatment), all found fewer hospitalizations when compared to a control group, or a smaller number of admissions after the intervention.
Mental health care for veterans should be provided by experienced practitioners—but those practitioners are leaving VA. According to the VA Office of Inspector General, 57% of medical centers report a shortage of psychologists. And according to the VA’s monthly Workforce Dashboard, the VHA lost 234 psychologists in the first 9 months of 2025. The VA has also announced plans to cut 30,000 jobs by the end of the year and impose caps on staff at every medical center.
“This approach locks in permanent VA understaffing just as demand for mental health services is projected to continue growing through 2030,” said Russell Lemle, PhD, a clinical psychologist and senior policy analyst for the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. “The private sector can’t fill this gap either—over a third of Americans live in areas already facing mental health professional shortages. That’s not taking care of our veterans.
“Unless actions are taken quickly to reverse the trend, its mental health services could easily diminish substantially within 10 to 20 years.”
Repeated and frequent hospitalizations—sometimes referred to as the revolving door phenomenon— are a particular risk for patients during the first month after discharge. Early psychiatric readmission is a standard indicator of adverse outcomes. However, the results
The quality of previous care has long been thought to be a driver of readmission. If that’s the case, a 2025 study suggests that on average veterans received high-quality inpatient psychiatric services at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the nation and that may have been key to keeping readmissions down. Analyzing data from 88,954 veterans who received care at VHA Inpatient Mental Health (IMH) services, the researchers found a “relatively low” rate of readmission within 30 days: 7.1% compared with 8% to 31% of other psychiatric patients in the US. With 40,220 unique patients receiving IMH care per year on average between October 2019 and September 2022, a 7.1% readmission rate means > 2800 30-day readmissions annually.
Research has found that veterans who receive care at the VA have better outcomes than those treated in the private sector. Part of that has to do with practitioners who understand the unique needs of their patients. Veterans may have posttraumatic stress disorder or multiple diagnoses, such as depression, panic disorder, and a substance use disorder. Their mental health issues may also coexist with physical health problems, such as traumatic brain injuries due to explosions.
“If you’re trained at the VA, you learn something important about veteran mental health care that you’ll never get if you’re trained someplace else,” Rodney R. Baker, PhD, retired mental health director and chief of psychology for the South Texas VA Health Care System, said recently. Community clinicians may not know how to collect and incorporate information about a patient’s military history, including details about deployments, combat exposure, injuries, military sexual trauma, and unit culture. They may also lack expertise in navigating the transition between military and veteran life, now considered a critical adjustment period.
“This is a unique population,” said Conwell Smith, the American Psychological Association’s deputy chief of military and veteran policy. “Sending veterans out to the community without requiring that mental health care providers understand them is concerning.”
IMH services aim to stabilize mental health crises and improve veterans’ functioning through patient-centered, evidence-based, and recovery-oriented approaches shown to reduce readmission rates. Treatment generally involves a minimum of 4 hours of interdisciplinary, therapeutic programming each day. And upon discharge, the inpatient care team facilitates the patient’s transition to appropriate outpatient services.
Follow-up care, particularly during the first 30 days, has proved critical in reducing readmissions. In studies that have analyzed postdischarge interventions (psychoeducation, mentoring, community-based hospital treatment, use of continuous follow-up and compulsory community treatment), all found fewer hospitalizations when compared to a control group, or a smaller number of admissions after the intervention.
Mental health care for veterans should be provided by experienced practitioners—but those practitioners are leaving VA. According to the VA Office of Inspector General, 57% of medical centers report a shortage of psychologists. And according to the VA’s monthly Workforce Dashboard, the VHA lost 234 psychologists in the first 9 months of 2025. The VA has also announced plans to cut 30,000 jobs by the end of the year and impose caps on staff at every medical center.
“This approach locks in permanent VA understaffing just as demand for mental health services is projected to continue growing through 2030,” said Russell Lemle, PhD, a clinical psychologist and senior policy analyst for the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. “The private sector can’t fill this gap either—over a third of Americans live in areas already facing mental health professional shortages. That’s not taking care of our veterans.
“Unless actions are taken quickly to reverse the trend, its mental health services could easily diminish substantially within 10 to 20 years.”
As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap
As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap
It's hardly news that the United States is experiencing a mental health crisis -- the CDC says as much. But experts in the field say that the current administration has severely compounded the problem by eliminating agency funding and national programs, slashing research grants and data resources, and creating new barriers to behavioral health care.
Philanthropic foundations aim to do what they can to address the shortfall. The numbers, however, just don't add up.
"Some big foundations and philanthropies have said they're going to increase what they give out in the next 4 years, but they'll never be able to fill the gap," said Morgan F. McDonald, MD, national director of population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, which works with states on health policy. "Even if every one of them were to spend down their endowments, they still couldn't."
Given the financial limitations, some foundations are taking a different tack. While looking for ways to join forces with fellow nonprofits, they are providing emergency grants to bridge funding in the short term to keep research from grinding to a halt.
Budget Cuts Reach Far and Wide
Mental health research certainly didn't escape the extensive grant cancellations at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
"It's already affecting our ability to stay on the cutting edge of research, best practices, and treatment approaches," said Zainab Okolo, EdD, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and government relations at The Jed Foundation in New York City, which focuses on the emotional health of teens and young adults.
The upheaval is evident in an array of government agencies. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which last year awarded $12 billion in grants to community health centers and addiction treatment services, has seen > one-fourth of its staff eliminated. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost more than a third of its staff as federal cuts took a $1 billion bite out of its operating budget. The Education Department has halted $1 billion in grants used to hire mental health workers in school districts nationwide.
"We're very, very concerned about cuts to behavioral health systems," said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. "Doctors and nurses working in safety-net clinics are seeing tremendous reductions."
All in all, the new tax and spending law means $1 trillion in cuts to health care programs including Medicaid -- the nation's largest payer for mental health services -- Medicare, and Affordable Care Act insurance. An estimated 10 million Americans are expected to lose their health coverage as a result.
"When accessibility to care goes down, there's a chance that more people will die by suicide," said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, PhD, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "But it also means people will come into care later in the course of their difficulties. Health professionals will be dealing with worse problems."
Foundations Take Emergency Measures
Even if private dollars can't replace what's been lost, philanthropic and medical foundations are stepping up.
We're seeing a lot of foundations and funders that are shifting their funding," said Alyson Niemann, CEO of Mindful Philanthropy, an organization that works with > 1000 private funders to marshal resources for mental health. This year, in response to federal cuts, "many increased funding to health and well-being, doubling or even tripling it," Niemann noted.
"They're making a great deal of effort to respond with emergency funds, really getting in the trenches and being good partners to their grantees," she said. "We've seen them asking deliberate questions, thinking about where their funding can have the most impact."
The American Psychological Foundation (APF), a longtime supporter of research and innovation, is addressing the current crisis with 2 initiatives, Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD, the organization's CEO, explained in an email. The first is APF Director Action, which funds innovative interventions at the community level. The second, Direct Action Crisis Funding Grants, will help continue research that is at risk of stalling because of budget cuts.
"Studies that are 'paused' or lose funding often cannot simply pick back up where they left off. Having to halt progress on a project can invalidate the work already completed," Ryder wrote. "These Direct Action Crisis Grants help bridge funding gaps and keep research viable."
At the same time, collaboration between foundations is becoming more widespread as they seek to maximize their impact. Philanthropic organizations are sharing ideas and best practices as well as pooling fundings.
"The goal of philanthropy is to help people," Harkavy-Friedman said. "There's strength in numbers and more dollars in numbers."
Some See Hope in Raised Voices
Despite the emergency scrambling, many of those in the trenches remain surprisingly optimistic. Some point out that the current turmoil has put a helpful spotlight on behavioral health care. Practitioners, meanwhile, have an essential role to play.
"There's a reason that things were the way they were: People advocated for many years to get where we've gotten," Harkavy-Friedman said, citing veterans' mental health care, the national violent death reporting system, and 988 as examples. "We have to raise our voices louder -- professionals in particular, because they know the impact a person in the general public many not fully grasp."
As a growing numbers of health professionals call attention to the damage wrought by deep cuts in the federal budget, foundation executives see an opportunity.
"In the mental health field, there's a deficit in the narrative, where there's a lot of focus on crisis. What we're hoping to do is shift the narrative toward 'How do we flourish together?'" Niemann said. "Sometimes deficits are where the most incredible innovations appear."
Debbie Koenig is a health writer whose work has been published by WebMD, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It's hardly news that the United States is experiencing a mental health crisis -- the CDC says as much. But experts in the field say that the current administration has severely compounded the problem by eliminating agency funding and national programs, slashing research grants and data resources, and creating new barriers to behavioral health care.
Philanthropic foundations aim to do what they can to address the shortfall. The numbers, however, just don't add up.
"Some big foundations and philanthropies have said they're going to increase what they give out in the next 4 years, but they'll never be able to fill the gap," said Morgan F. McDonald, MD, national director of population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, which works with states on health policy. "Even if every one of them were to spend down their endowments, they still couldn't."
Given the financial limitations, some foundations are taking a different tack. While looking for ways to join forces with fellow nonprofits, they are providing emergency grants to bridge funding in the short term to keep research from grinding to a halt.
Budget Cuts Reach Far and Wide
Mental health research certainly didn't escape the extensive grant cancellations at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
"It's already affecting our ability to stay on the cutting edge of research, best practices, and treatment approaches," said Zainab Okolo, EdD, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and government relations at The Jed Foundation in New York City, which focuses on the emotional health of teens and young adults.
The upheaval is evident in an array of government agencies. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which last year awarded $12 billion in grants to community health centers and addiction treatment services, has seen > one-fourth of its staff eliminated. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost more than a third of its staff as federal cuts took a $1 billion bite out of its operating budget. The Education Department has halted $1 billion in grants used to hire mental health workers in school districts nationwide.
"We're very, very concerned about cuts to behavioral health systems," said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. "Doctors and nurses working in safety-net clinics are seeing tremendous reductions."
All in all, the new tax and spending law means $1 trillion in cuts to health care programs including Medicaid -- the nation's largest payer for mental health services -- Medicare, and Affordable Care Act insurance. An estimated 10 million Americans are expected to lose their health coverage as a result.
"When accessibility to care goes down, there's a chance that more people will die by suicide," said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, PhD, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "But it also means people will come into care later in the course of their difficulties. Health professionals will be dealing with worse problems."
Foundations Take Emergency Measures
Even if private dollars can't replace what's been lost, philanthropic and medical foundations are stepping up.
We're seeing a lot of foundations and funders that are shifting their funding," said Alyson Niemann, CEO of Mindful Philanthropy, an organization that works with > 1000 private funders to marshal resources for mental health. This year, in response to federal cuts, "many increased funding to health and well-being, doubling or even tripling it," Niemann noted.
"They're making a great deal of effort to respond with emergency funds, really getting in the trenches and being good partners to their grantees," she said. "We've seen them asking deliberate questions, thinking about where their funding can have the most impact."
The American Psychological Foundation (APF), a longtime supporter of research and innovation, is addressing the current crisis with 2 initiatives, Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD, the organization's CEO, explained in an email. The first is APF Director Action, which funds innovative interventions at the community level. The second, Direct Action Crisis Funding Grants, will help continue research that is at risk of stalling because of budget cuts.
"Studies that are 'paused' or lose funding often cannot simply pick back up where they left off. Having to halt progress on a project can invalidate the work already completed," Ryder wrote. "These Direct Action Crisis Grants help bridge funding gaps and keep research viable."
At the same time, collaboration between foundations is becoming more widespread as they seek to maximize their impact. Philanthropic organizations are sharing ideas and best practices as well as pooling fundings.
"The goal of philanthropy is to help people," Harkavy-Friedman said. "There's strength in numbers and more dollars in numbers."
Some See Hope in Raised Voices
Despite the emergency scrambling, many of those in the trenches remain surprisingly optimistic. Some point out that the current turmoil has put a helpful spotlight on behavioral health care. Practitioners, meanwhile, have an essential role to play.
"There's a reason that things were the way they were: People advocated for many years to get where we've gotten," Harkavy-Friedman said, citing veterans' mental health care, the national violent death reporting system, and 988 as examples. "We have to raise our voices louder -- professionals in particular, because they know the impact a person in the general public many not fully grasp."
As a growing numbers of health professionals call attention to the damage wrought by deep cuts in the federal budget, foundation executives see an opportunity.
"In the mental health field, there's a deficit in the narrative, where there's a lot of focus on crisis. What we're hoping to do is shift the narrative toward 'How do we flourish together?'" Niemann said. "Sometimes deficits are where the most incredible innovations appear."
Debbie Koenig is a health writer whose work has been published by WebMD, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It's hardly news that the United States is experiencing a mental health crisis -- the CDC says as much. But experts in the field say that the current administration has severely compounded the problem by eliminating agency funding and national programs, slashing research grants and data resources, and creating new barriers to behavioral health care.
Philanthropic foundations aim to do what they can to address the shortfall. The numbers, however, just don't add up.
"Some big foundations and philanthropies have said they're going to increase what they give out in the next 4 years, but they'll never be able to fill the gap," said Morgan F. McDonald, MD, national director of population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, which works with states on health policy. "Even if every one of them were to spend down their endowments, they still couldn't."
Given the financial limitations, some foundations are taking a different tack. While looking for ways to join forces with fellow nonprofits, they are providing emergency grants to bridge funding in the short term to keep research from grinding to a halt.
Budget Cuts Reach Far and Wide
Mental health research certainly didn't escape the extensive grant cancellations at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
"It's already affecting our ability to stay on the cutting edge of research, best practices, and treatment approaches," said Zainab Okolo, EdD, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and government relations at The Jed Foundation in New York City, which focuses on the emotional health of teens and young adults.
The upheaval is evident in an array of government agencies. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which last year awarded $12 billion in grants to community health centers and addiction treatment services, has seen > one-fourth of its staff eliminated. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost more than a third of its staff as federal cuts took a $1 billion bite out of its operating budget. The Education Department has halted $1 billion in grants used to hire mental health workers in school districts nationwide.
"We're very, very concerned about cuts to behavioral health systems," said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. "Doctors and nurses working in safety-net clinics are seeing tremendous reductions."
All in all, the new tax and spending law means $1 trillion in cuts to health care programs including Medicaid -- the nation's largest payer for mental health services -- Medicare, and Affordable Care Act insurance. An estimated 10 million Americans are expected to lose their health coverage as a result.
"When accessibility to care goes down, there's a chance that more people will die by suicide," said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, PhD, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "But it also means people will come into care later in the course of their difficulties. Health professionals will be dealing with worse problems."
Foundations Take Emergency Measures
Even if private dollars can't replace what's been lost, philanthropic and medical foundations are stepping up.
We're seeing a lot of foundations and funders that are shifting their funding," said Alyson Niemann, CEO of Mindful Philanthropy, an organization that works with > 1000 private funders to marshal resources for mental health. This year, in response to federal cuts, "many increased funding to health and well-being, doubling or even tripling it," Niemann noted.
"They're making a great deal of effort to respond with emergency funds, really getting in the trenches and being good partners to their grantees," she said. "We've seen them asking deliberate questions, thinking about where their funding can have the most impact."
The American Psychological Foundation (APF), a longtime supporter of research and innovation, is addressing the current crisis with 2 initiatives, Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD, the organization's CEO, explained in an email. The first is APF Director Action, which funds innovative interventions at the community level. The second, Direct Action Crisis Funding Grants, will help continue research that is at risk of stalling because of budget cuts.
"Studies that are 'paused' or lose funding often cannot simply pick back up where they left off. Having to halt progress on a project can invalidate the work already completed," Ryder wrote. "These Direct Action Crisis Grants help bridge funding gaps and keep research viable."
At the same time, collaboration between foundations is becoming more widespread as they seek to maximize their impact. Philanthropic organizations are sharing ideas and best practices as well as pooling fundings.
"The goal of philanthropy is to help people," Harkavy-Friedman said. "There's strength in numbers and more dollars in numbers."
Some See Hope in Raised Voices
Despite the emergency scrambling, many of those in the trenches remain surprisingly optimistic. Some point out that the current turmoil has put a helpful spotlight on behavioral health care. Practitioners, meanwhile, have an essential role to play.
"There's a reason that things were the way they were: People advocated for many years to get where we've gotten," Harkavy-Friedman said, citing veterans' mental health care, the national violent death reporting system, and 988 as examples. "We have to raise our voices louder -- professionals in particular, because they know the impact a person in the general public many not fully grasp."
As a growing numbers of health professionals call attention to the damage wrought by deep cuts in the federal budget, foundation executives see an opportunity.
"In the mental health field, there's a deficit in the narrative, where there's a lot of focus on crisis. What we're hoping to do is shift the narrative toward 'How do we flourish together?'" Niemann said. "Sometimes deficits are where the most incredible innovations appear."
Debbie Koenig is a health writer whose work has been published by WebMD, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap
As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap
