Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

New data suggest that for individuals who do not have an adenoma detected on an index colonoscopy, the risk of developing an advanced neoplasia (AN) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is lower in those who are aged 40-49 years, compared with those who are 50-59 years old.

However, there is no difference between the two age groups in detection rates of nonadvanced adenoma (NAA) or advanced adenoma (AA), the same study found.

“The primary goal of this study was to investigate the risk of metachronous AN associated with conventional adenoma detected on the index colonoscopy,” explain the authors, led by Gene Ma, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Jose.

“The lack of good-quality evidence to inform surveillance in the 40-49 year old population has resulted in inconsistent surveillance patterns in clinical practice, leading to variation in the quality of care, including both inadequate and excessive colonoscopic surveillance,” Dr. Ma and colleagues observe.

The findings from this study “expand our understanding of the risk of AN and CRC in younger individuals and suggest that the current multi-society guidelines for surveillance may be applicable for individuals 40-49 years of age,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, and included 2,396 individuals between 40 and 49 years of age and 8,978 individuals between 50 and 59 years of age.

The colonoscopy was carried out for screening in 40.2% in the younger age group versus 34.8% in the older age group and was prompted by a positive fecal immunochemical test in 3.3% of the younger age group versus 32% of the older age group.

The median follow-up for both age groups was roughly 7 years.

“When comparing the 40-49 years group to the 50-59 years group, index colonoscopy detected no adenoma in 62.9% versus 40.1% (P < .0001); NAA in 25.4% versus 39.0% (P <.001), and AA in 11.6% versus 21.0% (P < .0001), respectively,” Dr. Ma and colleagues report.

When the two age groups were compared for surveillance colonoscopy, no adenoma was detected in 67% of the younger age group versus 54.7% of the older age group (P < .0001), whereas NAA was detected in 25.4% of the 40- to 49-year-olds versus 38.4% of the 50- to 59-year-olds (P < .0001). AA was detected in 3.5% versus 6.95 (P < .0001) of persons in each of the two age groups, respectively.

AN was detected on surveillance colonoscopy after index colonoscopy in 2.2% of the younger age group and twice that percentage, at 4.4%, in the older age group (P = .0003). On surveillance colonoscopy, NAA was found in 4.6% of the younger age group, compared with 7% of the older age group (P = .03), whereas AA was found in 7.9% of the 40- to 49-year-olds, compared with 11.7% of the 50- to 59-year-olds (P = .06).

The median time until surveillance colonoscopy was similar in both age groups when either NAA or AA was found on index colonoscopy, the authors note. In addition, the median time until the detection of AN was similar whether NAA or AA was detected on index colonoscopy, they add.

The overall crude cumulative incidence of AN was lower in the younger age group when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy (P = .0003) as well as when NAA was detected, which would be consistent with recommendations from current guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma detection. However, there was no difference between the two age groups in the overall cumulative incidence of AN when AA was detected on index colonoscopy.

Overall, the risk for metachronous AN in persons aged 40-49 years was lower when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy, but there was no difference between the two age groups when NAA or AA was detected again on index colonoscopy. Similarly, those aged 40-49 years of age had a lower risk for AA or CRC when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy – but again, there was no difference in the risk for AA or CRC when either NAA or AA was detected on index colonoscopy.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

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

New data suggest that for individuals who do not have an adenoma detected on an index colonoscopy, the risk of developing an advanced neoplasia (AN) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is lower in those who are aged 40-49 years, compared with those who are 50-59 years old.

However, there is no difference between the two age groups in detection rates of nonadvanced adenoma (NAA) or advanced adenoma (AA), the same study found.

“The primary goal of this study was to investigate the risk of metachronous AN associated with conventional adenoma detected on the index colonoscopy,” explain the authors, led by Gene Ma, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Jose.

“The lack of good-quality evidence to inform surveillance in the 40-49 year old population has resulted in inconsistent surveillance patterns in clinical practice, leading to variation in the quality of care, including both inadequate and excessive colonoscopic surveillance,” Dr. Ma and colleagues observe.

The findings from this study “expand our understanding of the risk of AN and CRC in younger individuals and suggest that the current multi-society guidelines for surveillance may be applicable for individuals 40-49 years of age,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, and included 2,396 individuals between 40 and 49 years of age and 8,978 individuals between 50 and 59 years of age.

The colonoscopy was carried out for screening in 40.2% in the younger age group versus 34.8% in the older age group and was prompted by a positive fecal immunochemical test in 3.3% of the younger age group versus 32% of the older age group.

The median follow-up for both age groups was roughly 7 years.

“When comparing the 40-49 years group to the 50-59 years group, index colonoscopy detected no adenoma in 62.9% versus 40.1% (P < .0001); NAA in 25.4% versus 39.0% (P <.001), and AA in 11.6% versus 21.0% (P < .0001), respectively,” Dr. Ma and colleagues report.

When the two age groups were compared for surveillance colonoscopy, no adenoma was detected in 67% of the younger age group versus 54.7% of the older age group (P < .0001), whereas NAA was detected in 25.4% of the 40- to 49-year-olds versus 38.4% of the 50- to 59-year-olds (P < .0001). AA was detected in 3.5% versus 6.95 (P < .0001) of persons in each of the two age groups, respectively.

AN was detected on surveillance colonoscopy after index colonoscopy in 2.2% of the younger age group and twice that percentage, at 4.4%, in the older age group (P = .0003). On surveillance colonoscopy, NAA was found in 4.6% of the younger age group, compared with 7% of the older age group (P = .03), whereas AA was found in 7.9% of the 40- to 49-year-olds, compared with 11.7% of the 50- to 59-year-olds (P = .06).

The median time until surveillance colonoscopy was similar in both age groups when either NAA or AA was found on index colonoscopy, the authors note. In addition, the median time until the detection of AN was similar whether NAA or AA was detected on index colonoscopy, they add.

The overall crude cumulative incidence of AN was lower in the younger age group when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy (P = .0003) as well as when NAA was detected, which would be consistent with recommendations from current guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma detection. However, there was no difference between the two age groups in the overall cumulative incidence of AN when AA was detected on index colonoscopy.

Overall, the risk for metachronous AN in persons aged 40-49 years was lower when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy, but there was no difference between the two age groups when NAA or AA was detected again on index colonoscopy. Similarly, those aged 40-49 years of age had a lower risk for AA or CRC when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy – but again, there was no difference in the risk for AA or CRC when either NAA or AA was detected on index colonoscopy.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

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

New data suggest that for individuals who do not have an adenoma detected on an index colonoscopy, the risk of developing an advanced neoplasia (AN) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is lower in those who are aged 40-49 years, compared with those who are 50-59 years old.

However, there is no difference between the two age groups in detection rates of nonadvanced adenoma (NAA) or advanced adenoma (AA), the same study found.

“The primary goal of this study was to investigate the risk of metachronous AN associated with conventional adenoma detected on the index colonoscopy,” explain the authors, led by Gene Ma, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Jose.

“The lack of good-quality evidence to inform surveillance in the 40-49 year old population has resulted in inconsistent surveillance patterns in clinical practice, leading to variation in the quality of care, including both inadequate and excessive colonoscopic surveillance,” Dr. Ma and colleagues observe.

The findings from this study “expand our understanding of the risk of AN and CRC in younger individuals and suggest that the current multi-society guidelines for surveillance may be applicable for individuals 40-49 years of age,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, and included 2,396 individuals between 40 and 49 years of age and 8,978 individuals between 50 and 59 years of age.

The colonoscopy was carried out for screening in 40.2% in the younger age group versus 34.8% in the older age group and was prompted by a positive fecal immunochemical test in 3.3% of the younger age group versus 32% of the older age group.

The median follow-up for both age groups was roughly 7 years.

“When comparing the 40-49 years group to the 50-59 years group, index colonoscopy detected no adenoma in 62.9% versus 40.1% (P < .0001); NAA in 25.4% versus 39.0% (P <.001), and AA in 11.6% versus 21.0% (P < .0001), respectively,” Dr. Ma and colleagues report.

When the two age groups were compared for surveillance colonoscopy, no adenoma was detected in 67% of the younger age group versus 54.7% of the older age group (P < .0001), whereas NAA was detected in 25.4% of the 40- to 49-year-olds versus 38.4% of the 50- to 59-year-olds (P < .0001). AA was detected in 3.5% versus 6.95 (P < .0001) of persons in each of the two age groups, respectively.

AN was detected on surveillance colonoscopy after index colonoscopy in 2.2% of the younger age group and twice that percentage, at 4.4%, in the older age group (P = .0003). On surveillance colonoscopy, NAA was found in 4.6% of the younger age group, compared with 7% of the older age group (P = .03), whereas AA was found in 7.9% of the 40- to 49-year-olds, compared with 11.7% of the 50- to 59-year-olds (P = .06).

The median time until surveillance colonoscopy was similar in both age groups when either NAA or AA was found on index colonoscopy, the authors note. In addition, the median time until the detection of AN was similar whether NAA or AA was detected on index colonoscopy, they add.

The overall crude cumulative incidence of AN was lower in the younger age group when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy (P = .0003) as well as when NAA was detected, which would be consistent with recommendations from current guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma detection. However, there was no difference between the two age groups in the overall cumulative incidence of AN when AA was detected on index colonoscopy.

Overall, the risk for metachronous AN in persons aged 40-49 years was lower when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy, but there was no difference between the two age groups when NAA or AA was detected again on index colonoscopy. Similarly, those aged 40-49 years of age had a lower risk for AA or CRC when no adenoma was detected on index colonoscopy – but again, there was no difference in the risk for AA or CRC when either NAA or AA was detected on index colonoscopy.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

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

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

Black and minority groups are significantly underrepresented in major drug trials for leukemias and multiple myeloma (MM), compared with the proportions of these groups in the broader patient population, a new study concludes.  

“Our analysis shows that, over the past 10 years, participation in pivotal clinical trials investigating therapies for leukemias and MM is unrepresentative of the U.S. population,” say the authors, led by Jorge E. Cortes, MD, of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University, Ga. “Trials should represent the population with the disease,” they comment.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“This study confirms that the U.S. cancer population for select hematologic malignancies was inadequately racially and ethnically represented in studies leading to drug approval,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The results from this study should lead to questions about the generalizability of drug safety and efficacy in populations we serve as medical hematologists and oncologists,” say Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, along with Namrata S. Chandhok, MD, both of the division of hematology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  

They pose the question, for instance, as physicians practicing in South Florida, where most of their patients are Hispanic, “can we apply the results of these pivotal studies – and drug labels – to them, without any sense of whether they metabolize the drug the same way as those included in the study or have the same biologic targets?”
 

Analysis of pivotal trials

For their study, Dr. Cortes and colleagues analyzed 61 pivotal trials for leukemia and MM leading to approval of the drugs from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2011 and 2021.

They found that only two-thirds (67.2%) of these trials reported data pertaining to race, while about half (48.8%) reported on ethnicity.

The trials that did report data on race involved a total of 13,731 patients. The vast majority (81.6%) were White, and Black patients represented only 3.8%. Asian/Pacific Islanders made up 9.1%, and American Indians or Alaskan Natives made up just 0.12% of participants, with 1.5% categorized as other.

Among the trials reporting on ethnicity, 4.7% of patients were Hispanic, with 11.5% being Hispanic in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) trials and 7.6% Hispanic in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) trials.

Slightly more than half (54.8%) of all trial participants were male, and patients’ average ages ranged from 41.7 to 67.3 years across all malignancies.

Of the minority groups, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Black people had the highest representation in trials involving CML, at 12.7% and 5.3%, respectively.

Their lowest representation was in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), at 3% and 1.1%, respectively.

Among the trials reporting ethnicity, Hispanic people were the highest representation, with percentages ranging from 3.8% of MM trials to 11.5% in ALL trials.
 

Inconsistent with patient populations

Next, the researchers compared the proportions of race/ethnic groups that were found among the participants of these pivotal trials with the proportions that would be expected in patient populations for each of these blood cancers (according to the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] database).

For example, White people made up 80.3% of participants in clinical trials of MM, whereas they represent 68.7% of patients with MM, a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

The finding was similar for CML, with White people accounting for 90.5% of participants in clinical trials versus 82.5% of the patient population (P < .0001).

For AML, the difference was smaller, with respective percentages of 79.6 versus 77.3% (P = .0389).

For Black people, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanic people, across all five cancer types that were analyzed, the proportion of participants in clinical trials was significantly lower than the proportion in the patient population.

The analysis also showed that females were overrepresented in clinical trials for two blood cancers. For MM, trial participation was 44.7%, while disease incidence was 41.7% (P < .0001), and for CML the proportions were 44.7% versus 39.5% (P = .0009). However, females were underrepresented in a third blood cancer: in AML, the proportions were 44.7% versus 60.5% (P < .0001).
 

Geographic location of trials often inaccessible

The study also highlighted an obstacle to minorities participating in clinical trials: geography.

For this analysis, the researchers looked at mortality rates for the various blood cancers.  

For AML, they found mortality rates were high across the whole of the United States, but centers conducting AML clinical trials were primarily in the Northeast, with no centers in the Midwest.

Key regions with high rates of AML mortality, low access to trials, and high minority representation were notably clustered in areas including east of the Carolinas, South Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, the authors noted.

“In many instances, trials were absent in areas with high mortality,” they report. “This makes access to clinical trials difficult, if not impossible, to patients who do not have the financial means for travel.”
 

Further action needed

Racial and ethnic disparities in clinical trials have been widely reported in numerous previous studies, the authors note.

Various initiatives have been launched in recent years to tackle the problem, including the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, FDA race and ethnicity guidance, and the International Conference for Harmonization guidance.

For oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has also taken steps with the release of the new Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Action Plan in 2021 to improve representation of minorities in research.

Dr. Cortes and colleagues suggest another step that is needed is standardized reporting of demographics of clinical trial participants.

“More importantly, efforts to increase representation of minorities and disadvantaged populations in clinical trials should be prioritized,” they say.

Dr. Cortes reports a consulting role and receiving research funding from many pharmaceutical companies. No other coauthors have financial disclosures. Dr. Chandhok reports honoraria from Healio, Clinical Care Options, and a consulting role with Servier. Dr. Sekeres reports a consulting role with Celgene, Millennium, Pfizer, Novartis, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Kurome Therapeutics, and institutional research funding from Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Actuate Therapeutics, Sellas Life Sciences, and Bio-Path Holdings.

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

Black and minority groups are significantly underrepresented in major drug trials for leukemias and multiple myeloma (MM), compared with the proportions of these groups in the broader patient population, a new study concludes.  

“Our analysis shows that, over the past 10 years, participation in pivotal clinical trials investigating therapies for leukemias and MM is unrepresentative of the U.S. population,” say the authors, led by Jorge E. Cortes, MD, of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University, Ga. “Trials should represent the population with the disease,” they comment.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“This study confirms that the U.S. cancer population for select hematologic malignancies was inadequately racially and ethnically represented in studies leading to drug approval,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The results from this study should lead to questions about the generalizability of drug safety and efficacy in populations we serve as medical hematologists and oncologists,” say Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, along with Namrata S. Chandhok, MD, both of the division of hematology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  

They pose the question, for instance, as physicians practicing in South Florida, where most of their patients are Hispanic, “can we apply the results of these pivotal studies – and drug labels – to them, without any sense of whether they metabolize the drug the same way as those included in the study or have the same biologic targets?”
 

Analysis of pivotal trials

For their study, Dr. Cortes and colleagues analyzed 61 pivotal trials for leukemia and MM leading to approval of the drugs from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2011 and 2021.

They found that only two-thirds (67.2%) of these trials reported data pertaining to race, while about half (48.8%) reported on ethnicity.

The trials that did report data on race involved a total of 13,731 patients. The vast majority (81.6%) were White, and Black patients represented only 3.8%. Asian/Pacific Islanders made up 9.1%, and American Indians or Alaskan Natives made up just 0.12% of participants, with 1.5% categorized as other.

Among the trials reporting on ethnicity, 4.7% of patients were Hispanic, with 11.5% being Hispanic in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) trials and 7.6% Hispanic in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) trials.

Slightly more than half (54.8%) of all trial participants were male, and patients’ average ages ranged from 41.7 to 67.3 years across all malignancies.

Of the minority groups, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Black people had the highest representation in trials involving CML, at 12.7% and 5.3%, respectively.

Their lowest representation was in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), at 3% and 1.1%, respectively.

Among the trials reporting ethnicity, Hispanic people were the highest representation, with percentages ranging from 3.8% of MM trials to 11.5% in ALL trials.
 

Inconsistent with patient populations

Next, the researchers compared the proportions of race/ethnic groups that were found among the participants of these pivotal trials with the proportions that would be expected in patient populations for each of these blood cancers (according to the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] database).

For example, White people made up 80.3% of participants in clinical trials of MM, whereas they represent 68.7% of patients with MM, a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

The finding was similar for CML, with White people accounting for 90.5% of participants in clinical trials versus 82.5% of the patient population (P < .0001).

For AML, the difference was smaller, with respective percentages of 79.6 versus 77.3% (P = .0389).

For Black people, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanic people, across all five cancer types that were analyzed, the proportion of participants in clinical trials was significantly lower than the proportion in the patient population.

The analysis also showed that females were overrepresented in clinical trials for two blood cancers. For MM, trial participation was 44.7%, while disease incidence was 41.7% (P < .0001), and for CML the proportions were 44.7% versus 39.5% (P = .0009). However, females were underrepresented in a third blood cancer: in AML, the proportions were 44.7% versus 60.5% (P < .0001).
 

Geographic location of trials often inaccessible

The study also highlighted an obstacle to minorities participating in clinical trials: geography.

For this analysis, the researchers looked at mortality rates for the various blood cancers.  

For AML, they found mortality rates were high across the whole of the United States, but centers conducting AML clinical trials were primarily in the Northeast, with no centers in the Midwest.

Key regions with high rates of AML mortality, low access to trials, and high minority representation were notably clustered in areas including east of the Carolinas, South Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, the authors noted.

“In many instances, trials were absent in areas with high mortality,” they report. “This makes access to clinical trials difficult, if not impossible, to patients who do not have the financial means for travel.”
 

Further action needed

Racial and ethnic disparities in clinical trials have been widely reported in numerous previous studies, the authors note.

Various initiatives have been launched in recent years to tackle the problem, including the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, FDA race and ethnicity guidance, and the International Conference for Harmonization guidance.

For oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has also taken steps with the release of the new Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Action Plan in 2021 to improve representation of minorities in research.

Dr. Cortes and colleagues suggest another step that is needed is standardized reporting of demographics of clinical trial participants.

“More importantly, efforts to increase representation of minorities and disadvantaged populations in clinical trials should be prioritized,” they say.

Dr. Cortes reports a consulting role and receiving research funding from many pharmaceutical companies. No other coauthors have financial disclosures. Dr. Chandhok reports honoraria from Healio, Clinical Care Options, and a consulting role with Servier. Dr. Sekeres reports a consulting role with Celgene, Millennium, Pfizer, Novartis, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Kurome Therapeutics, and institutional research funding from Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Actuate Therapeutics, Sellas Life Sciences, and Bio-Path Holdings.

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

Black and minority groups are significantly underrepresented in major drug trials for leukemias and multiple myeloma (MM), compared with the proportions of these groups in the broader patient population, a new study concludes.  

“Our analysis shows that, over the past 10 years, participation in pivotal clinical trials investigating therapies for leukemias and MM is unrepresentative of the U.S. population,” say the authors, led by Jorge E. Cortes, MD, of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University, Ga. “Trials should represent the population with the disease,” they comment.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“This study confirms that the U.S. cancer population for select hematologic malignancies was inadequately racially and ethnically represented in studies leading to drug approval,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The results from this study should lead to questions about the generalizability of drug safety and efficacy in populations we serve as medical hematologists and oncologists,” say Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, along with Namrata S. Chandhok, MD, both of the division of hematology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  

They pose the question, for instance, as physicians practicing in South Florida, where most of their patients are Hispanic, “can we apply the results of these pivotal studies – and drug labels – to them, without any sense of whether they metabolize the drug the same way as those included in the study or have the same biologic targets?”
 

Analysis of pivotal trials

For their study, Dr. Cortes and colleagues analyzed 61 pivotal trials for leukemia and MM leading to approval of the drugs from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2011 and 2021.

They found that only two-thirds (67.2%) of these trials reported data pertaining to race, while about half (48.8%) reported on ethnicity.

The trials that did report data on race involved a total of 13,731 patients. The vast majority (81.6%) were White, and Black patients represented only 3.8%. Asian/Pacific Islanders made up 9.1%, and American Indians or Alaskan Natives made up just 0.12% of participants, with 1.5% categorized as other.

Among the trials reporting on ethnicity, 4.7% of patients were Hispanic, with 11.5% being Hispanic in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) trials and 7.6% Hispanic in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) trials.

Slightly more than half (54.8%) of all trial participants were male, and patients’ average ages ranged from 41.7 to 67.3 years across all malignancies.

Of the minority groups, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Black people had the highest representation in trials involving CML, at 12.7% and 5.3%, respectively.

Their lowest representation was in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), at 3% and 1.1%, respectively.

Among the trials reporting ethnicity, Hispanic people were the highest representation, with percentages ranging from 3.8% of MM trials to 11.5% in ALL trials.
 

Inconsistent with patient populations

Next, the researchers compared the proportions of race/ethnic groups that were found among the participants of these pivotal trials with the proportions that would be expected in patient populations for each of these blood cancers (according to the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] database).

For example, White people made up 80.3% of participants in clinical trials of MM, whereas they represent 68.7% of patients with MM, a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

The finding was similar for CML, with White people accounting for 90.5% of participants in clinical trials versus 82.5% of the patient population (P < .0001).

For AML, the difference was smaller, with respective percentages of 79.6 versus 77.3% (P = .0389).

For Black people, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanic people, across all five cancer types that were analyzed, the proportion of participants in clinical trials was significantly lower than the proportion in the patient population.

The analysis also showed that females were overrepresented in clinical trials for two blood cancers. For MM, trial participation was 44.7%, while disease incidence was 41.7% (P < .0001), and for CML the proportions were 44.7% versus 39.5% (P = .0009). However, females were underrepresented in a third blood cancer: in AML, the proportions were 44.7% versus 60.5% (P < .0001).
 

Geographic location of trials often inaccessible

The study also highlighted an obstacle to minorities participating in clinical trials: geography.

For this analysis, the researchers looked at mortality rates for the various blood cancers.  

For AML, they found mortality rates were high across the whole of the United States, but centers conducting AML clinical trials were primarily in the Northeast, with no centers in the Midwest.

Key regions with high rates of AML mortality, low access to trials, and high minority representation were notably clustered in areas including east of the Carolinas, South Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, the authors noted.

“In many instances, trials were absent in areas with high mortality,” they report. “This makes access to clinical trials difficult, if not impossible, to patients who do not have the financial means for travel.”
 

Further action needed

Racial and ethnic disparities in clinical trials have been widely reported in numerous previous studies, the authors note.

Various initiatives have been launched in recent years to tackle the problem, including the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, FDA race and ethnicity guidance, and the International Conference for Harmonization guidance.

For oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has also taken steps with the release of the new Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Action Plan in 2021 to improve representation of minorities in research.

Dr. Cortes and colleagues suggest another step that is needed is standardized reporting of demographics of clinical trial participants.

“More importantly, efforts to increase representation of minorities and disadvantaged populations in clinical trials should be prioritized,” they say.

Dr. Cortes reports a consulting role and receiving research funding from many pharmaceutical companies. No other coauthors have financial disclosures. Dr. Chandhok reports honoraria from Healio, Clinical Care Options, and a consulting role with Servier. Dr. Sekeres reports a consulting role with Celgene, Millennium, Pfizer, Novartis, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Kurome Therapeutics, and institutional research funding from Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Actuate Therapeutics, Sellas Life Sciences, and Bio-Path Holdings.

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

Whether coffee is good or bad for health is a frequent debate in the media, fueled by apparently conflicting studies suggesting the plethora of bioactive chemicals in the popular brew could either raise or lower cancer risk.

Now, an analysis by Cambridge scientists has suggested that while coffee is not associated with enhanced overall risk of non–digestive system cancers among people genetically predicted to drink more of it, consumption was associated with a higher risk of digestive system cancers.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

That risk was driven by a “strong association” with esophageal cancer, although this might be explained by a tendency for drinking it warm or hot, the study in the journal Clinical Nutrition suggested.

Regular coffee drinking has been linked to a slightly lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, it remains unclear whether coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer.
 

Hotly debated

In 2016, a working group of international scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect of drinking coffee. However, the experts did find that drinking very hot beverages was a probable cause of esophageal cancer, making “the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves” the most likely cause, according to the organization’s director.

This latest study concurred. “We provide strong evidence for a causal relationship which is large in magnitude (threefold) and consistent across sensitivity analyses and in a replication study,” it stated.

The Cambridge researchers, assisted by colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Bristol Medical School, conducted a Mendelian randomization study to investigate causal associations between coffee consumption and 22 site-specific cancers using data of individuals of European descent in the UK Biobank.

They reported “no strong evidence supporting a causal relationship between genetically-predicted coffee consumption and the majority of cancers studied” (odds ratio [OR], in the main analysis 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.14, P = .183), and remained without association after adjustments for predicted BMI, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

However, genetically predicted coffee consumption was linked to an increased risk of digestive system cancer (OR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09-1.51, P = .003), and the risk was largely attributed to “a strong association with esophageal cancer” (OR, 2.79, 95% CI, 1.73-4.50, P = 2.5x10^-5). This risk association remained persistent after adjustment for confounders, the researchers said.
 

Coffee or tea?

Further analysis of the data found that increased risk of esophageal cancer was consistently associated with genetically predicted coffee consumption by individuals with a preference for warm and hot drinks. Among this group, a similar esophageal cancer risk profile among those who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee a day and those who said they did not drink coffee was most likely due to a high prevalence of tea drinking, the study authors said.

“It is, therefore, plausible that a carcinogenic effect of coffee relates to thermal injury broadly, rather than being specific to coffee or its constituents,” said the scientists, who highlighted that this was also pointed out by the IARC in its statement 6 years ago.

Genetically predicted coffee consumption was also found to be associated with increased risk of multiple myeloma (OR, 2.25, 95% CI, 1.30-3.89, P = .004) and reduced ovarian cancer risk (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.93, P = .020).

The authors concluded there was “evidence for coffee consumption being causally associated with risk of esophageal cancer, with some evidence this is related to a temperature effect.” Otherwise, “our results do not support a linear causal association with the majority of cancer types studied, other than limited evidence for harmful and protective associations with multiple myeloma and ovarian cancers respectively.”

Further studies were needed to investigate “the possible mechanisms of coffee consumption in esophageal carcinogenesis,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Whether coffee is good or bad for health is a frequent debate in the media, fueled by apparently conflicting studies suggesting the plethora of bioactive chemicals in the popular brew could either raise or lower cancer risk.

Now, an analysis by Cambridge scientists has suggested that while coffee is not associated with enhanced overall risk of non–digestive system cancers among people genetically predicted to drink more of it, consumption was associated with a higher risk of digestive system cancers.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

That risk was driven by a “strong association” with esophageal cancer, although this might be explained by a tendency for drinking it warm or hot, the study in the journal Clinical Nutrition suggested.

Regular coffee drinking has been linked to a slightly lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, it remains unclear whether coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer.
 

Hotly debated

In 2016, a working group of international scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect of drinking coffee. However, the experts did find that drinking very hot beverages was a probable cause of esophageal cancer, making “the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves” the most likely cause, according to the organization’s director.

This latest study concurred. “We provide strong evidence for a causal relationship which is large in magnitude (threefold) and consistent across sensitivity analyses and in a replication study,” it stated.

The Cambridge researchers, assisted by colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Bristol Medical School, conducted a Mendelian randomization study to investigate causal associations between coffee consumption and 22 site-specific cancers using data of individuals of European descent in the UK Biobank.

They reported “no strong evidence supporting a causal relationship between genetically-predicted coffee consumption and the majority of cancers studied” (odds ratio [OR], in the main analysis 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.14, P = .183), and remained without association after adjustments for predicted BMI, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

However, genetically predicted coffee consumption was linked to an increased risk of digestive system cancer (OR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09-1.51, P = .003), and the risk was largely attributed to “a strong association with esophageal cancer” (OR, 2.79, 95% CI, 1.73-4.50, P = 2.5x10^-5). This risk association remained persistent after adjustment for confounders, the researchers said.
 

Coffee or tea?

Further analysis of the data found that increased risk of esophageal cancer was consistently associated with genetically predicted coffee consumption by individuals with a preference for warm and hot drinks. Among this group, a similar esophageal cancer risk profile among those who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee a day and those who said they did not drink coffee was most likely due to a high prevalence of tea drinking, the study authors said.

“It is, therefore, plausible that a carcinogenic effect of coffee relates to thermal injury broadly, rather than being specific to coffee or its constituents,” said the scientists, who highlighted that this was also pointed out by the IARC in its statement 6 years ago.

Genetically predicted coffee consumption was also found to be associated with increased risk of multiple myeloma (OR, 2.25, 95% CI, 1.30-3.89, P = .004) and reduced ovarian cancer risk (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.93, P = .020).

The authors concluded there was “evidence for coffee consumption being causally associated with risk of esophageal cancer, with some evidence this is related to a temperature effect.” Otherwise, “our results do not support a linear causal association with the majority of cancer types studied, other than limited evidence for harmful and protective associations with multiple myeloma and ovarian cancers respectively.”

Further studies were needed to investigate “the possible mechanisms of coffee consumption in esophageal carcinogenesis,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Whether coffee is good or bad for health is a frequent debate in the media, fueled by apparently conflicting studies suggesting the plethora of bioactive chemicals in the popular brew could either raise or lower cancer risk.

Now, an analysis by Cambridge scientists has suggested that while coffee is not associated with enhanced overall risk of non–digestive system cancers among people genetically predicted to drink more of it, consumption was associated with a higher risk of digestive system cancers.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

That risk was driven by a “strong association” with esophageal cancer, although this might be explained by a tendency for drinking it warm or hot, the study in the journal Clinical Nutrition suggested.

Regular coffee drinking has been linked to a slightly lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, it remains unclear whether coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer.
 

Hotly debated

In 2016, a working group of international scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect of drinking coffee. However, the experts did find that drinking very hot beverages was a probable cause of esophageal cancer, making “the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves” the most likely cause, according to the organization’s director.

This latest study concurred. “We provide strong evidence for a causal relationship which is large in magnitude (threefold) and consistent across sensitivity analyses and in a replication study,” it stated.

The Cambridge researchers, assisted by colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Bristol Medical School, conducted a Mendelian randomization study to investigate causal associations between coffee consumption and 22 site-specific cancers using data of individuals of European descent in the UK Biobank.

They reported “no strong evidence supporting a causal relationship between genetically-predicted coffee consumption and the majority of cancers studied” (odds ratio [OR], in the main analysis 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.14, P = .183), and remained without association after adjustments for predicted BMI, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

However, genetically predicted coffee consumption was linked to an increased risk of digestive system cancer (OR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09-1.51, P = .003), and the risk was largely attributed to “a strong association with esophageal cancer” (OR, 2.79, 95% CI, 1.73-4.50, P = 2.5x10^-5). This risk association remained persistent after adjustment for confounders, the researchers said.
 

Coffee or tea?

Further analysis of the data found that increased risk of esophageal cancer was consistently associated with genetically predicted coffee consumption by individuals with a preference for warm and hot drinks. Among this group, a similar esophageal cancer risk profile among those who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee a day and those who said they did not drink coffee was most likely due to a high prevalence of tea drinking, the study authors said.

“It is, therefore, plausible that a carcinogenic effect of coffee relates to thermal injury broadly, rather than being specific to coffee or its constituents,” said the scientists, who highlighted that this was also pointed out by the IARC in its statement 6 years ago.

Genetically predicted coffee consumption was also found to be associated with increased risk of multiple myeloma (OR, 2.25, 95% CI, 1.30-3.89, P = .004) and reduced ovarian cancer risk (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.93, P = .020).

The authors concluded there was “evidence for coffee consumption being causally associated with risk of esophageal cancer, with some evidence this is related to a temperature effect.” Otherwise, “our results do not support a linear causal association with the majority of cancer types studied, other than limited evidence for harmful and protective associations with multiple myeloma and ovarian cancers respectively.”

Further studies were needed to investigate “the possible mechanisms of coffee consumption in esophageal carcinogenesis,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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