Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

Gun violence has become the leading killer of youth in the United States, rising by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2020.

In 2020, 4,357 children aged 1-19, or approximately 6 in 100,000, died from a gun-related injury, the researchers reported, modestly exceeding the number for auto accidents (3,913) and greatly exceeding deaths caused by suffocation (1,411) or drowning (966).

To observers of gun violence in this country, the grim statistical marker has been all but inevitable. Gunshots were the second-leading cause of death in 2016 among children aged 1-19, the researchers reported. But sharp rises in such fatalities since then, especially in 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic began, pushed the death toll above all other causes among Americans in this age group.

Guns accounted for more than 45,000 deaths among all age groups in 2020, also a record, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although gun deaths rose across nearly every racial and ethnic group, the increase was greatest among Black children. In this group, firearms accounted for more than 15 deaths per 100,000 children in 2020 – up from about 12 such deaths in 2019.

Homicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, followed by suicide and then accidental shootings, although the reason for some deaths could not be determined, according to the researchers.

The researchers reported their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Gun deaths among children are preventable, both researchers and advocates said.

“There are ways to reduce injuries without banning guns,” said Jason Goldstick, PhD, a statistician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who led the study.

Dr. Goldstick pointed to significant investments in car vehicle safety as a model for policy makers to follow today for making gun injuries less frequent and deadly.

“More people drive today than in the 1970s, and motor vehicle–related injury rates are much lower,” Dr. Goldstick said. Innovations like seatbelt laws and changes in how cars are built have made them less deadly during a crash. Similar innovations are possible in how guns are managed.

More than 4.6 million U.S. children live in homes with unsecured firearms, according to Shannon Watts of the advocacy organization Moms Demand Action. “Securely storing firearms unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition is a simple yet lifesaving action that all gun owners should follow – and lawmakers should require,” she said in a statement to this news organization.

“The effects of gun violence ripple far beyond the child who was struck by a bullet,” said Sarah Burd-Sharps, the senior director of research for the advocacy organization Everytown for Gun Safety. Children might grieve their friends who are now lost or worry that they will be next.

The data in this study aren’t surprising, Ms. Burd-Sharps said, given the large number of homes in which guns are unsecured and the sharp rise in gun sales during the pandemic. On average one child per day in the United States accesses an unsecured gun that ends up injuring or killing themself or someone else.

“Gun owners want to be responsible. These deaths are really preventable,” Ms. Burd-Sharps said. In addition to securing ammunition and firearms separately, she recommended wider use of biometric guns that can only be used by someone with a specific fingerprint. If a young person got ahold of such a gun, even if it was loaded, they couldn’t use it.

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Gun violence has become the leading killer of youth in the United States, rising by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2020.

In 2020, 4,357 children aged 1-19, or approximately 6 in 100,000, died from a gun-related injury, the researchers reported, modestly exceeding the number for auto accidents (3,913) and greatly exceeding deaths caused by suffocation (1,411) or drowning (966).

To observers of gun violence in this country, the grim statistical marker has been all but inevitable. Gunshots were the second-leading cause of death in 2016 among children aged 1-19, the researchers reported. But sharp rises in such fatalities since then, especially in 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic began, pushed the death toll above all other causes among Americans in this age group.

Guns accounted for more than 45,000 deaths among all age groups in 2020, also a record, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although gun deaths rose across nearly every racial and ethnic group, the increase was greatest among Black children. In this group, firearms accounted for more than 15 deaths per 100,000 children in 2020 – up from about 12 such deaths in 2019.

Homicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, followed by suicide and then accidental shootings, although the reason for some deaths could not be determined, according to the researchers.

The researchers reported their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Gun deaths among children are preventable, both researchers and advocates said.

“There are ways to reduce injuries without banning guns,” said Jason Goldstick, PhD, a statistician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who led the study.

Dr. Goldstick pointed to significant investments in car vehicle safety as a model for policy makers to follow today for making gun injuries less frequent and deadly.

“More people drive today than in the 1970s, and motor vehicle–related injury rates are much lower,” Dr. Goldstick said. Innovations like seatbelt laws and changes in how cars are built have made them less deadly during a crash. Similar innovations are possible in how guns are managed.

More than 4.6 million U.S. children live in homes with unsecured firearms, according to Shannon Watts of the advocacy organization Moms Demand Action. “Securely storing firearms unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition is a simple yet lifesaving action that all gun owners should follow – and lawmakers should require,” she said in a statement to this news organization.

“The effects of gun violence ripple far beyond the child who was struck by a bullet,” said Sarah Burd-Sharps, the senior director of research for the advocacy organization Everytown for Gun Safety. Children might grieve their friends who are now lost or worry that they will be next.

The data in this study aren’t surprising, Ms. Burd-Sharps said, given the large number of homes in which guns are unsecured and the sharp rise in gun sales during the pandemic. On average one child per day in the United States accesses an unsecured gun that ends up injuring or killing themself or someone else.

“Gun owners want to be responsible. These deaths are really preventable,” Ms. Burd-Sharps said. In addition to securing ammunition and firearms separately, she recommended wider use of biometric guns that can only be used by someone with a specific fingerprint. If a young person got ahold of such a gun, even if it was loaded, they couldn’t use it.

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Gun violence has become the leading killer of youth in the United States, rising by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2020.

In 2020, 4,357 children aged 1-19, or approximately 6 in 100,000, died from a gun-related injury, the researchers reported, modestly exceeding the number for auto accidents (3,913) and greatly exceeding deaths caused by suffocation (1,411) or drowning (966).

To observers of gun violence in this country, the grim statistical marker has been all but inevitable. Gunshots were the second-leading cause of death in 2016 among children aged 1-19, the researchers reported. But sharp rises in such fatalities since then, especially in 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic began, pushed the death toll above all other causes among Americans in this age group.

Guns accounted for more than 45,000 deaths among all age groups in 2020, also a record, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although gun deaths rose across nearly every racial and ethnic group, the increase was greatest among Black children. In this group, firearms accounted for more than 15 deaths per 100,000 children in 2020 – up from about 12 such deaths in 2019.

Homicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, followed by suicide and then accidental shootings, although the reason for some deaths could not be determined, according to the researchers.

The researchers reported their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Gun deaths among children are preventable, both researchers and advocates said.

“There are ways to reduce injuries without banning guns,” said Jason Goldstick, PhD, a statistician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who led the study.

Dr. Goldstick pointed to significant investments in car vehicle safety as a model for policy makers to follow today for making gun injuries less frequent and deadly.

“More people drive today than in the 1970s, and motor vehicle–related injury rates are much lower,” Dr. Goldstick said. Innovations like seatbelt laws and changes in how cars are built have made them less deadly during a crash. Similar innovations are possible in how guns are managed.

More than 4.6 million U.S. children live in homes with unsecured firearms, according to Shannon Watts of the advocacy organization Moms Demand Action. “Securely storing firearms unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition is a simple yet lifesaving action that all gun owners should follow – and lawmakers should require,” she said in a statement to this news organization.

“The effects of gun violence ripple far beyond the child who was struck by a bullet,” said Sarah Burd-Sharps, the senior director of research for the advocacy organization Everytown for Gun Safety. Children might grieve their friends who are now lost or worry that they will be next.

The data in this study aren’t surprising, Ms. Burd-Sharps said, given the large number of homes in which guns are unsecured and the sharp rise in gun sales during the pandemic. On average one child per day in the United States accesses an unsecured gun that ends up injuring or killing themself or someone else.

“Gun owners want to be responsible. These deaths are really preventable,” Ms. Burd-Sharps said. In addition to securing ammunition and firearms separately, she recommended wider use of biometric guns that can only be used by someone with a specific fingerprint. If a young person got ahold of such a gun, even if it was loaded, they couldn’t use it.

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Most National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers fail to publicly disclose negotiated prices for cancer therapies, despite federal requirements to do so.

Among those that do provide this information, new research shows that hospitals substantially mark up prices for top-selling cancer therapies relative to acquisition costs. Median drug price markups across NCI centers and payers ranged from nearly 120% to more than 600%.

As a result, “the total price for an entire treatment course could vary on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Roy Xiao, MD, department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Manufacturers often price novel anticancer therapies at more than $100,000 per year, but less is known about how much hospitals mark up these prices for patients with private health insurance and how much negotiated prices vary across centers and payers.

Dr. Xiao and colleagues analyzed private payer-specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files for 61 NCI-designated cancer centers.

Fewer than half of the centers (44.3%) disclosed payer-specific negotiated prices for at least one top-selling cancer drug. Disclosure rates for different drugs ranged from 21.3% (13 centers) for rituximab with hyaluronidase to 42.6% (26 centers) for rituximab, bevacizumab, or leuprolide.

The researchers also found a wide variation in negotiated prices for cancer therapies across hospitals. Across-center price ratios – defined as the ratio between the 90th and 10th percentile median price per unit – ranged from 2.2 ($16 vs. $36 for pembrolizumab 1 mg) and 15.8 ($247 vs. $3,914 for leuprolide 7.5 mg).

Payer-specific prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center. Among all centers, the median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab).

As for the extent of cancer therapy markups, median price markups across centers and payers ranged from 118% (sipuleucel-T) to 634% (leuprolide) more than the estimated cost paid by hospitals.

Conservative estimates of acquisition costs and payer-specific prices yielded markups ranging from 42.1% (sipuleucel-T) to 234.1% (leuprolide).

The authors also provided examples of how these variations might affect the total cost of treatment. For instance, the median total price variation across centers to treat metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with pembrolizumab was $168,405. At one institution, the within-center median price variation for daratumumab as third-line therapy for multiple myeloma was $174,225.

To reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, the authors suggested implementing public policies “to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics.”

To promote hospital compliance with transparency regulations, in January 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services increased penalties for nondisclosure from a fixed maximum of $300 per day to up to $5,500 per day, based on hospital bed size, which would total over $2 million per year, Dr. Xiao said in an interview.

“We would expect that this significant financial penalty would encourage more consistent reporting,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Xiao has disclosed no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Most National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers fail to publicly disclose negotiated prices for cancer therapies, despite federal requirements to do so.

Among those that do provide this information, new research shows that hospitals substantially mark up prices for top-selling cancer therapies relative to acquisition costs. Median drug price markups across NCI centers and payers ranged from nearly 120% to more than 600%.

As a result, “the total price for an entire treatment course could vary on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Roy Xiao, MD, department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Manufacturers often price novel anticancer therapies at more than $100,000 per year, but less is known about how much hospitals mark up these prices for patients with private health insurance and how much negotiated prices vary across centers and payers.

Dr. Xiao and colleagues analyzed private payer-specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files for 61 NCI-designated cancer centers.

Fewer than half of the centers (44.3%) disclosed payer-specific negotiated prices for at least one top-selling cancer drug. Disclosure rates for different drugs ranged from 21.3% (13 centers) for rituximab with hyaluronidase to 42.6% (26 centers) for rituximab, bevacizumab, or leuprolide.

The researchers also found a wide variation in negotiated prices for cancer therapies across hospitals. Across-center price ratios – defined as the ratio between the 90th and 10th percentile median price per unit – ranged from 2.2 ($16 vs. $36 for pembrolizumab 1 mg) and 15.8 ($247 vs. $3,914 for leuprolide 7.5 mg).

Payer-specific prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center. Among all centers, the median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab).

As for the extent of cancer therapy markups, median price markups across centers and payers ranged from 118% (sipuleucel-T) to 634% (leuprolide) more than the estimated cost paid by hospitals.

Conservative estimates of acquisition costs and payer-specific prices yielded markups ranging from 42.1% (sipuleucel-T) to 234.1% (leuprolide).

The authors also provided examples of how these variations might affect the total cost of treatment. For instance, the median total price variation across centers to treat metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with pembrolizumab was $168,405. At one institution, the within-center median price variation for daratumumab as third-line therapy for multiple myeloma was $174,225.

To reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, the authors suggested implementing public policies “to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics.”

To promote hospital compliance with transparency regulations, in January 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services increased penalties for nondisclosure from a fixed maximum of $300 per day to up to $5,500 per day, based on hospital bed size, which would total over $2 million per year, Dr. Xiao said in an interview.

“We would expect that this significant financial penalty would encourage more consistent reporting,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Xiao has disclosed no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Most National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers fail to publicly disclose negotiated prices for cancer therapies, despite federal requirements to do so.

Among those that do provide this information, new research shows that hospitals substantially mark up prices for top-selling cancer therapies relative to acquisition costs. Median drug price markups across NCI centers and payers ranged from nearly 120% to more than 600%.

As a result, “the total price for an entire treatment course could vary on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Roy Xiao, MD, department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Manufacturers often price novel anticancer therapies at more than $100,000 per year, but less is known about how much hospitals mark up these prices for patients with private health insurance and how much negotiated prices vary across centers and payers.

Dr. Xiao and colleagues analyzed private payer-specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files for 61 NCI-designated cancer centers.

Fewer than half of the centers (44.3%) disclosed payer-specific negotiated prices for at least one top-selling cancer drug. Disclosure rates for different drugs ranged from 21.3% (13 centers) for rituximab with hyaluronidase to 42.6% (26 centers) for rituximab, bevacizumab, or leuprolide.

The researchers also found a wide variation in negotiated prices for cancer therapies across hospitals. Across-center price ratios – defined as the ratio between the 90th and 10th percentile median price per unit – ranged from 2.2 ($16 vs. $36 for pembrolizumab 1 mg) and 15.8 ($247 vs. $3,914 for leuprolide 7.5 mg).

Payer-specific prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center. Among all centers, the median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab).

As for the extent of cancer therapy markups, median price markups across centers and payers ranged from 118% (sipuleucel-T) to 634% (leuprolide) more than the estimated cost paid by hospitals.

Conservative estimates of acquisition costs and payer-specific prices yielded markups ranging from 42.1% (sipuleucel-T) to 234.1% (leuprolide).

The authors also provided examples of how these variations might affect the total cost of treatment. For instance, the median total price variation across centers to treat metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with pembrolizumab was $168,405. At one institution, the within-center median price variation for daratumumab as third-line therapy for multiple myeloma was $174,225.

To reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, the authors suggested implementing public policies “to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics.”

To promote hospital compliance with transparency regulations, in January 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services increased penalties for nondisclosure from a fixed maximum of $300 per day to up to $5,500 per day, based on hospital bed size, which would total over $2 million per year, Dr. Xiao said in an interview.

“We would expect that this significant financial penalty would encourage more consistent reporting,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Xiao has disclosed no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Even within the first year of implementation, the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act has made an impact.

“In the year prior to RACE implementation, there were no approvals of therapeutics that required pediatric studies,” said Brittany Avin McKelvey, PhD, science policy analyst with Friends of Cancer Research and a childhood cancer survivor. “Within the first year of implementation, almost half of approved therapeutics required pediatric study.”

The legislation was passed by Congress in 2017 and took effect in August 2020. It requires that therapeutics that are approved for adult cancers be tested in pediatric cancers if those drugs are directed at molecular targets relevant for pediatric cancers.

The RACE Act also requires testing of therapeutics that are given an orphan drug designation. Such drugs were previously exempt from pediatric trials.

Dr. McKelvey presented the new findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

To evaluate the impact of the RACE Act during the first year of its implementation, her team assessed all the new cancer drugs approved between August 2019 and August 2021.

Nineteen drugs were identified; 63.2% were approved in the year before the RACE Act took effect, and 36.8% were approved after its implementation. The team suspects that the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the lower number of post-RACE approvals.

The researchers found that prior to implementation of the RACE Act, none of the approved adult cancer therapeutics were required to be studied in pediatric populations. But more than 90% of those had molecular targets that would have required that they be studied in pediatric cancers had the RACE Act been in place. The majority of these drugs were exempt because of their designation as orphan drugs.

In the post-RACE group, however, 42.9% of approved drugs are required to be studied in pediatric cancers. One example is infigratinib (Truseltiq), a drug for adult cholangiocarcinoma that targets the protein fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). Truseltiq is an orphan drug – and thus would have been exempt prior to the RACE Act – but it will now be studied in pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic tumors harboring alterations in FGFR2.

“I find these results encouraging, but it is still very early,” said John Maris, MD, an attending physician and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 1 year into implementation, and this legislation will be around for a long time.”

In an interview, Dr. McKelvey noted that although a handful of clinical trials for pediatric cancers have been launched since implementation of RACE, many drugs are still being waived for pediatric study even when a relevant mechanism of action is present – largely because the extremely low incidence of many childhood cancers makes it impractical or, in some cases, impossible to conduct such studies. “This highlights the need for additional opportunities to help facilitate and encourage robust pediatric studies,” she said.

The main limitation of the study is that it examined data 1 year after the implementation of the RACE Act; further analysis is needed to determine the full extent of its impact, Dr. McKelvey said. “The true measure of success will be determined by whether increased pediatric studies actually translate to label expansions for pediatric patient populations and access to these therapies.”

The study was supported by funding from Friends of Cancer Research.

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

Even within the first year of implementation, the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act has made an impact.

“In the year prior to RACE implementation, there were no approvals of therapeutics that required pediatric studies,” said Brittany Avin McKelvey, PhD, science policy analyst with Friends of Cancer Research and a childhood cancer survivor. “Within the first year of implementation, almost half of approved therapeutics required pediatric study.”

The legislation was passed by Congress in 2017 and took effect in August 2020. It requires that therapeutics that are approved for adult cancers be tested in pediatric cancers if those drugs are directed at molecular targets relevant for pediatric cancers.

The RACE Act also requires testing of therapeutics that are given an orphan drug designation. Such drugs were previously exempt from pediatric trials.

Dr. McKelvey presented the new findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

To evaluate the impact of the RACE Act during the first year of its implementation, her team assessed all the new cancer drugs approved between August 2019 and August 2021.

Nineteen drugs were identified; 63.2% were approved in the year before the RACE Act took effect, and 36.8% were approved after its implementation. The team suspects that the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the lower number of post-RACE approvals.

The researchers found that prior to implementation of the RACE Act, none of the approved adult cancer therapeutics were required to be studied in pediatric populations. But more than 90% of those had molecular targets that would have required that they be studied in pediatric cancers had the RACE Act been in place. The majority of these drugs were exempt because of their designation as orphan drugs.

In the post-RACE group, however, 42.9% of approved drugs are required to be studied in pediatric cancers. One example is infigratinib (Truseltiq), a drug for adult cholangiocarcinoma that targets the protein fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). Truseltiq is an orphan drug – and thus would have been exempt prior to the RACE Act – but it will now be studied in pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic tumors harboring alterations in FGFR2.

“I find these results encouraging, but it is still very early,” said John Maris, MD, an attending physician and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 1 year into implementation, and this legislation will be around for a long time.”

In an interview, Dr. McKelvey noted that although a handful of clinical trials for pediatric cancers have been launched since implementation of RACE, many drugs are still being waived for pediatric study even when a relevant mechanism of action is present – largely because the extremely low incidence of many childhood cancers makes it impractical or, in some cases, impossible to conduct such studies. “This highlights the need for additional opportunities to help facilitate and encourage robust pediatric studies,” she said.

The main limitation of the study is that it examined data 1 year after the implementation of the RACE Act; further analysis is needed to determine the full extent of its impact, Dr. McKelvey said. “The true measure of success will be determined by whether increased pediatric studies actually translate to label expansions for pediatric patient populations and access to these therapies.”

The study was supported by funding from Friends of Cancer Research.

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

Even within the first year of implementation, the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act has made an impact.

“In the year prior to RACE implementation, there were no approvals of therapeutics that required pediatric studies,” said Brittany Avin McKelvey, PhD, science policy analyst with Friends of Cancer Research and a childhood cancer survivor. “Within the first year of implementation, almost half of approved therapeutics required pediatric study.”

The legislation was passed by Congress in 2017 and took effect in August 2020. It requires that therapeutics that are approved for adult cancers be tested in pediatric cancers if those drugs are directed at molecular targets relevant for pediatric cancers.

The RACE Act also requires testing of therapeutics that are given an orphan drug designation. Such drugs were previously exempt from pediatric trials.

Dr. McKelvey presented the new findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

To evaluate the impact of the RACE Act during the first year of its implementation, her team assessed all the new cancer drugs approved between August 2019 and August 2021.

Nineteen drugs were identified; 63.2% were approved in the year before the RACE Act took effect, and 36.8% were approved after its implementation. The team suspects that the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to the lower number of post-RACE approvals.

The researchers found that prior to implementation of the RACE Act, none of the approved adult cancer therapeutics were required to be studied in pediatric populations. But more than 90% of those had molecular targets that would have required that they be studied in pediatric cancers had the RACE Act been in place. The majority of these drugs were exempt because of their designation as orphan drugs.

In the post-RACE group, however, 42.9% of approved drugs are required to be studied in pediatric cancers. One example is infigratinib (Truseltiq), a drug for adult cholangiocarcinoma that targets the protein fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). Truseltiq is an orphan drug – and thus would have been exempt prior to the RACE Act – but it will now be studied in pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic tumors harboring alterations in FGFR2.

“I find these results encouraging, but it is still very early,” said John Maris, MD, an attending physician and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 1 year into implementation, and this legislation will be around for a long time.”

In an interview, Dr. McKelvey noted that although a handful of clinical trials for pediatric cancers have been launched since implementation of RACE, many drugs are still being waived for pediatric study even when a relevant mechanism of action is present – largely because the extremely low incidence of many childhood cancers makes it impractical or, in some cases, impossible to conduct such studies. “This highlights the need for additional opportunities to help facilitate and encourage robust pediatric studies,” she said.

The main limitation of the study is that it examined data 1 year after the implementation of the RACE Act; further analysis is needed to determine the full extent of its impact, Dr. McKelvey said. “The true measure of success will be determined by whether increased pediatric studies actually translate to label expansions for pediatric patient populations and access to these therapies.”

The study was supported by funding from Friends of Cancer Research.

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

Extraverts and individuals who are disciplined are less likely to experience cognitive decline later in life, whereas those with neuroticism have an increased risk for cognitive dysfunction, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data from almost 2,000 individuals enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) – a longitudinal study of older adults living in the greater Chicago metropolitan region and northeastern Illinois – with recruitment that began in 1997 and continues through today. Participants received a personality assessment as well as annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

Those with high scores on measures of conscientiousness were significantly less likely to progress from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) during the study. In fact, scoring an extra 1 standard deviation on the conscientiousness scale was associated with a 22% lower risk of transitioning from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI. On the other hand, scoring an additional 1 SD on a neuroticism scale was associated with a 12% increased risk of transitioning to MCI.

Participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored high on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, tended to maintain normal cognitive functioning longer than other participants.

“Personality traits reflect relatively enduring patterns of thinking and behaving, which may cumulatively affect engagement in healthy and unhealthy behaviors and thought patterns across the lifespan,” lead author Tomiko Yoneda, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of medical social sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The accumulation of lifelong experiences may then contribute to susceptibility of particular diseases or disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment, or contribute to individual differences in the ability to withstand age-related neurological changes,” she added.

The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 

Competing risk factors

Personality traits “reflect an individual’s persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving,” Dr. Yoneda said.

“For example, conscientiousness is characterized by competence, dutifulness, and self-discipline, while neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, depressive symptoms, and emotional instability. Likewise, individuals high in extraversion tend to be enthusiastic, gregarious, talkative, and assertive,” she added.

Previous research “suggests that low conscientiousness and high neuroticism are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment,” she continued. However, “there is also an increased risk of death in older adulthood – in other words, these outcomes are ‘competing risk factors.’”

Dr. Yoneda said her team wanted to “examine the impact of personality traits on the simultaneous risk of transitioning to mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and death.”  

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1,954 participants in MAP (mean age at baseline 80 years, 73.7% female, 86.8% White), who received a personality assessment and annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

To assess personality traits – in particular, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion – the researchers used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). They also used multistate survival modeling to examine the potential association between these traits and transitions from one cognitive status category to another (NCI, MCI, and dementia) and to death.
 

Cognitive healthspan

By the end of the study, over half of the sample (54%) had died.

Most transitions showed “relative stability in cognitive status across measurement occasions.”

• NCI to NCI (n = 7,368)
• MCI to MCI (n = 1,244)
• Dementia to dementia (n = 876)

There were 725 “backward transitions” from MCI to NCI, “which may reflect improvement or within-person variability in cognitive functioning, or learning effects,” the authors note.

There were only 114 “backward transitions” from dementia to MCI and only 12 from dementia to NCI, “suggesting that improvement in cognitive status was relatively rare, particularly once an individual progresses to dementia.”

After adjusting for demographics, depressive symptoms, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele, the researchers found that personality traits were the most important factors in the transition from NCI to MCI.

Higher conscientiousness was associated with a decreased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.85). Conversely, higher neuroticism was associated with an increased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21) and a significantly decreased likelihood of transition back from MCI to NCI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

Scoring ~6 points on a conscientiousness scale ranging from 0-48 (that is, 1 SD on the scale) was significantly associated with ~22% lower risk of transitioning forward from NCI to MCI, while scoring ~7 more points on a neuroticism scale (1 SD) was significantly associated with ~12% higher risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI.

Higher extraversion was associated with an increased likelihood of transitioning from MCI back to NCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22), and although extraversion was not associated with a longer total lifespan, participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored low on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, maintained normal cognitive function longer than other participants.

“Our results suggest that high conscientiousness and low neuroticism may protect individuals against mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Yoneda.

Importantly, individuals who were either higher in conscientiousness, higher in extraversion, or lower in neuroticism had more years of “cognitive healthspan,” meaning more years without cognitive impairment,” she added.

In addition, “individuals lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion were more likely to recover after receiving an MCI diagnosis, suggesting that these traits may be protective even after an individual starts to progress to dementia,” she said.

The authors note that the study focused on only three of the Big Five personality traits, while the other 2 – openness to experience and agreeableness – may also be associated with cognitive aging processes and mortality.

Nevertheless, given the current results, alongside extensive research in the personality field, aiming to increase conscientiousness through persistent behavioral change is one potential strategy for promoting healthy cognitive aging, Dr. Yoneda said.
 

‘Invaluable window’

In a comment, Brent Roberts, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the study provides an “invaluable window into how personality affects the process of decline and either accelerates it, as in the role of neuroticism, or decelerates it, as in the role of conscientiousness.”

“I think the most fascinating finding was the fact that extraversion was related to transitioning from MCI back to NCI. These types of transitions have simply not been part of prior research, and it provides utterly unique insights and opportunities for interventions that may actually help people recover from a decline,” said Dr. Roberts, who was not involved in the research.

Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, called the paper “novel” because it investigated the transitions between normal cognition and mild impairment and between mild impairment and dementia.

Dr. Sexton, who was associated with this research team, cautioned that is it observational, “so it can illuminate associations or correlations, but not causes. As a result, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are behind these potential connections between personality and cognition, and more research is needed.”

The research was supported by the Alzheimer Society Research Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yoneda and co-authors, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extraverts and individuals who are disciplined are less likely to experience cognitive decline later in life, whereas those with neuroticism have an increased risk for cognitive dysfunction, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data from almost 2,000 individuals enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) – a longitudinal study of older adults living in the greater Chicago metropolitan region and northeastern Illinois – with recruitment that began in 1997 and continues through today. Participants received a personality assessment as well as annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

Those with high scores on measures of conscientiousness were significantly less likely to progress from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) during the study. In fact, scoring an extra 1 standard deviation on the conscientiousness scale was associated with a 22% lower risk of transitioning from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI. On the other hand, scoring an additional 1 SD on a neuroticism scale was associated with a 12% increased risk of transitioning to MCI.

Participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored high on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, tended to maintain normal cognitive functioning longer than other participants.

“Personality traits reflect relatively enduring patterns of thinking and behaving, which may cumulatively affect engagement in healthy and unhealthy behaviors and thought patterns across the lifespan,” lead author Tomiko Yoneda, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of medical social sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The accumulation of lifelong experiences may then contribute to susceptibility of particular diseases or disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment, or contribute to individual differences in the ability to withstand age-related neurological changes,” she added.

The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 

Competing risk factors

Personality traits “reflect an individual’s persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving,” Dr. Yoneda said.

“For example, conscientiousness is characterized by competence, dutifulness, and self-discipline, while neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, depressive symptoms, and emotional instability. Likewise, individuals high in extraversion tend to be enthusiastic, gregarious, talkative, and assertive,” she added.

Previous research “suggests that low conscientiousness and high neuroticism are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment,” she continued. However, “there is also an increased risk of death in older adulthood – in other words, these outcomes are ‘competing risk factors.’”

Dr. Yoneda said her team wanted to “examine the impact of personality traits on the simultaneous risk of transitioning to mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and death.”  

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1,954 participants in MAP (mean age at baseline 80 years, 73.7% female, 86.8% White), who received a personality assessment and annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

To assess personality traits – in particular, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion – the researchers used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). They also used multistate survival modeling to examine the potential association between these traits and transitions from one cognitive status category to another (NCI, MCI, and dementia) and to death.
 

Cognitive healthspan

By the end of the study, over half of the sample (54%) had died.

Most transitions showed “relative stability in cognitive status across measurement occasions.”

• NCI to NCI (n = 7,368)
• MCI to MCI (n = 1,244)
• Dementia to dementia (n = 876)

There were 725 “backward transitions” from MCI to NCI, “which may reflect improvement or within-person variability in cognitive functioning, or learning effects,” the authors note.

There were only 114 “backward transitions” from dementia to MCI and only 12 from dementia to NCI, “suggesting that improvement in cognitive status was relatively rare, particularly once an individual progresses to dementia.”

After adjusting for demographics, depressive symptoms, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele, the researchers found that personality traits were the most important factors in the transition from NCI to MCI.

Higher conscientiousness was associated with a decreased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.85). Conversely, higher neuroticism was associated with an increased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21) and a significantly decreased likelihood of transition back from MCI to NCI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

Scoring ~6 points on a conscientiousness scale ranging from 0-48 (that is, 1 SD on the scale) was significantly associated with ~22% lower risk of transitioning forward from NCI to MCI, while scoring ~7 more points on a neuroticism scale (1 SD) was significantly associated with ~12% higher risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI.

Higher extraversion was associated with an increased likelihood of transitioning from MCI back to NCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22), and although extraversion was not associated with a longer total lifespan, participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored low on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, maintained normal cognitive function longer than other participants.

“Our results suggest that high conscientiousness and low neuroticism may protect individuals against mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Yoneda.

Importantly, individuals who were either higher in conscientiousness, higher in extraversion, or lower in neuroticism had more years of “cognitive healthspan,” meaning more years without cognitive impairment,” she added.

In addition, “individuals lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion were more likely to recover after receiving an MCI diagnosis, suggesting that these traits may be protective even after an individual starts to progress to dementia,” she said.

The authors note that the study focused on only three of the Big Five personality traits, while the other 2 – openness to experience and agreeableness – may also be associated with cognitive aging processes and mortality.

Nevertheless, given the current results, alongside extensive research in the personality field, aiming to increase conscientiousness through persistent behavioral change is one potential strategy for promoting healthy cognitive aging, Dr. Yoneda said.
 

‘Invaluable window’

In a comment, Brent Roberts, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the study provides an “invaluable window into how personality affects the process of decline and either accelerates it, as in the role of neuroticism, or decelerates it, as in the role of conscientiousness.”

“I think the most fascinating finding was the fact that extraversion was related to transitioning from MCI back to NCI. These types of transitions have simply not been part of prior research, and it provides utterly unique insights and opportunities for interventions that may actually help people recover from a decline,” said Dr. Roberts, who was not involved in the research.

Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, called the paper “novel” because it investigated the transitions between normal cognition and mild impairment and between mild impairment and dementia.

Dr. Sexton, who was associated with this research team, cautioned that is it observational, “so it can illuminate associations or correlations, but not causes. As a result, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are behind these potential connections between personality and cognition, and more research is needed.”

The research was supported by the Alzheimer Society Research Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yoneda and co-authors, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extraverts and individuals who are disciplined are less likely to experience cognitive decline later in life, whereas those with neuroticism have an increased risk for cognitive dysfunction, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data from almost 2,000 individuals enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) – a longitudinal study of older adults living in the greater Chicago metropolitan region and northeastern Illinois – with recruitment that began in 1997 and continues through today. Participants received a personality assessment as well as annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

Those with high scores on measures of conscientiousness were significantly less likely to progress from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) during the study. In fact, scoring an extra 1 standard deviation on the conscientiousness scale was associated with a 22% lower risk of transitioning from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI. On the other hand, scoring an additional 1 SD on a neuroticism scale was associated with a 12% increased risk of transitioning to MCI.

Participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored high on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, tended to maintain normal cognitive functioning longer than other participants.

“Personality traits reflect relatively enduring patterns of thinking and behaving, which may cumulatively affect engagement in healthy and unhealthy behaviors and thought patterns across the lifespan,” lead author Tomiko Yoneda, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of medical social sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The accumulation of lifelong experiences may then contribute to susceptibility of particular diseases or disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment, or contribute to individual differences in the ability to withstand age-related neurological changes,” she added.

The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 

Competing risk factors

Personality traits “reflect an individual’s persistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving,” Dr. Yoneda said.

“For example, conscientiousness is characterized by competence, dutifulness, and self-discipline, while neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, depressive symptoms, and emotional instability. Likewise, individuals high in extraversion tend to be enthusiastic, gregarious, talkative, and assertive,” she added.

Previous research “suggests that low conscientiousness and high neuroticism are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment,” she continued. However, “there is also an increased risk of death in older adulthood – in other words, these outcomes are ‘competing risk factors.’”

Dr. Yoneda said her team wanted to “examine the impact of personality traits on the simultaneous risk of transitioning to mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and death.”  

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1,954 participants in MAP (mean age at baseline 80 years, 73.7% female, 86.8% White), who received a personality assessment and annual assessments of their cognitive abilities.

To assess personality traits – in particular, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion – the researchers used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). They also used multistate survival modeling to examine the potential association between these traits and transitions from one cognitive status category to another (NCI, MCI, and dementia) and to death.
 

Cognitive healthspan

By the end of the study, over half of the sample (54%) had died.

Most transitions showed “relative stability in cognitive status across measurement occasions.”

• NCI to NCI (n = 7,368)
• MCI to MCI (n = 1,244)
• Dementia to dementia (n = 876)

There were 725 “backward transitions” from MCI to NCI, “which may reflect improvement or within-person variability in cognitive functioning, or learning effects,” the authors note.

There were only 114 “backward transitions” from dementia to MCI and only 12 from dementia to NCI, “suggesting that improvement in cognitive status was relatively rare, particularly once an individual progresses to dementia.”

After adjusting for demographics, depressive symptoms, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele, the researchers found that personality traits were the most important factors in the transition from NCI to MCI.

Higher conscientiousness was associated with a decreased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.85). Conversely, higher neuroticism was associated with an increased risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21) and a significantly decreased likelihood of transition back from MCI to NCI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

Scoring ~6 points on a conscientiousness scale ranging from 0-48 (that is, 1 SD on the scale) was significantly associated with ~22% lower risk of transitioning forward from NCI to MCI, while scoring ~7 more points on a neuroticism scale (1 SD) was significantly associated with ~12% higher risk of transitioning from NCI to MCI.

Higher extraversion was associated with an increased likelihood of transitioning from MCI back to NCI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22), and although extraversion was not associated with a longer total lifespan, participants who scored high on extraversion, as well as those who scored low on conscientiousness or low on neuroticism, maintained normal cognitive function longer than other participants.

“Our results suggest that high conscientiousness and low neuroticism may protect individuals against mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Yoneda.

Importantly, individuals who were either higher in conscientiousness, higher in extraversion, or lower in neuroticism had more years of “cognitive healthspan,” meaning more years without cognitive impairment,” she added.

In addition, “individuals lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion were more likely to recover after receiving an MCI diagnosis, suggesting that these traits may be protective even after an individual starts to progress to dementia,” she said.

The authors note that the study focused on only three of the Big Five personality traits, while the other 2 – openness to experience and agreeableness – may also be associated with cognitive aging processes and mortality.

Nevertheless, given the current results, alongside extensive research in the personality field, aiming to increase conscientiousness through persistent behavioral change is one potential strategy for promoting healthy cognitive aging, Dr. Yoneda said.
 

‘Invaluable window’

In a comment, Brent Roberts, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the study provides an “invaluable window into how personality affects the process of decline and either accelerates it, as in the role of neuroticism, or decelerates it, as in the role of conscientiousness.”

“I think the most fascinating finding was the fact that extraversion was related to transitioning from MCI back to NCI. These types of transitions have simply not been part of prior research, and it provides utterly unique insights and opportunities for interventions that may actually help people recover from a decline,” said Dr. Roberts, who was not involved in the research.

Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, called the paper “novel” because it investigated the transitions between normal cognition and mild impairment and between mild impairment and dementia.

Dr. Sexton, who was associated with this research team, cautioned that is it observational, “so it can illuminate associations or correlations, but not causes. As a result, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are behind these potential connections between personality and cognition, and more research is needed.”

The research was supported by the Alzheimer Society Research Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yoneda and co-authors, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Disulfiram, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for the treatment of chronic alcohol dependence, shows promise as a potential anxiolytic, early research suggests.

Japanese researchers, headed by Akiyoshi Saitoh, PhD, professor in the department of pharmacy, Tokyo University of Science, compared the reactions of mice that received a classic anxiolytic agent (diazepam) to those that received disulfiram while performing a maze task and found comparable reductions in anxiety in both groups of mice.

Moreover, unlike diazepam, disulfiram caused no sedation, amnesia, or impairments in coordination.

“These results indicate that disulfiram can be used safely by elderly patients suffering from anxiety and insomnia and has the potential to become a breakthrough psychotropic drug,” Dr. Saitoh said in a press release.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
 

Inhibitory function

Disulfiram inhibits the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), which is responsible for alcohol metabolism. Recent research suggests that disulfiram may have broader inhibitory functions.

In particular, it inhibits the cytoplasmic protein FROUNT, preventing it from interacting with two chemokine receptors (CCR2 and CCRs) that are involved in cellular signaling pathways and are associated with regulating behaviors, including anxiety, in rodents, the authors write.

“Although the functions of FROUNT-chemokines signaling in the immune system are well documented, the potential role of CNS-expressed FROUNT chemokine–related molecules as neuromodulators remains largely unknown,” they write.

The researchers had been conducting preclinical research on the secondary pharmacologic properties of disulfiram and “coincidentally discovered” its “anxiolytic-like effects.” They investigated these effects further because currently used anxiolytics – i.e., benzodiazepines – have unwanted side effects.

The researchers utilized an elevated plus-maze (EPM) test to investigate the effects of disulfiram in mice. The EPM apparatus consists of four arms set in a cross pattern and are connected to a central square. Of these, two arms are protected by vertical boundaries, while the other two have unprotected edges. Typically, mice with anxiety prefer to spend time in the closed arms. The mice also underwent other tests of coordination and the ability to navigate a Y-maze.

Some mice received disulfiram, others received a benzodiazepine, and others received merely a “vehicle,” which served as a control.

Disulfiram “significantly and dose-dependently” increased the time spent in the open arms of the EPM, compared with the vehicle-treated group, at 30 minutes after administration (F [3, 30] = 16.64; P < .0001), suggesting less anxiety. The finding was confirmed by a Bonferroni analysis that showed a significant effect of disulfiram, compared with the vehicle-treated group, at all three doses (20 mg/kg: t = 0.9894; P > .05; 40 mg/kg: t = 3.863; P < .01; 80 mg/kg: t = 6.417; P < .001).

A Student’s t-test analysis showed that diazepam likewise had a significant effect, compared to the vehicle (t = 5.038; P < .001).

Disulfiram also “significantly and dose-dependently” increased the percentage of open-arm entries (F [3, 30] = 14.24; P < .0001). The Bonferroni analysis showed this effect at all three doses (20 mg/kg: t = 0.3999; P > .05; 40 mg/kg: t = 2.693; P > .05; 80 mg/kg: t = 5.864; P < .001).

Diazepam similarly showed a significant effect, compared to the vehicle condition (t = 3.733; P < .005).

In particular, the 40 mg/kg dose of disulfiram significantly increased the percentage of time spent in the open arms at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after administration, with the peak effect occurring at 30 minutes.

The researchers examined the effect of cyanamide, another ALDH inhibitor, on the anxiety behaviors of mice and found no effect on the number of open-arm entries or percentage of time the mice spent in the open arm, compared with the vehicle condition.

In contrast to diazepam, disulfiram had no effect on the amount of spontaneous locomotor activity, time spent on the rotarod, or activity on the Y-maze test displayed by the mice, “suggesting that there were no apparent sedative effects at the dosages used.” Moreover, unlike the mice treated with diazepam, there were no increases in the number of falls the mice experienced on the rotarod.

Glutamate levels in the prelimbic-prefrontal cortex (PL-PFC) “play an important role in the development of anxiety-like behavior in mice,” the authors state. Disulfiram “significantly and completely attenuated increased extracellular glutamate levels in the PL-PFC during stress exposure” on the EPM.

“We propose that DSF inhibits FROUNT protein and the chemokine signaling pathways under its influence, which may suppress presynaptic glutamatergic transmission in the brain,” said Dr. Saitoh. “This, in turn, attenuates the levels of glutamate in the brain, reducing overall anxiety.”
 

Humanity’s most common affliction

Commenting for this news organization, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, noted that there is a “renewed interest in psychiatry in excitatory and inhibitory balance – for example, ketamine represents a treatment that facilitates excitatory activity, while neurosteroids are candidate medicines now for inhibitory activity.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is the chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, and was not involved with the study, said it is believed “that the excitatory-inhibitory balance may be relevant to brain health and disease.”

Dr. McIntyre also pointed out that the study “highlights not only the repurposing of a well-known medicine but also exploit[s] the potential brain therapeutic effects of immune targets that indirectly affect inhibitory systems, resulting in potentially a safer treatment for anxiety – the most common affliction of humanity.”

Also commenting for this article, Wilfrid Noel Raby, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., called disulfiram “grossly underused for alcohol use disorders and even more so when people use alcohol and cocaine.”

Dr. Raby, who was not involved with the study, has found that patients withdrawing from cocaine, cannabis, or stimulants “can respond very well to disulfiram [not only] in terms of their cravings but also in terms of mood stabilization and anxiolysis.”

He has also found that for patients with bipolar disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with depression disulfiram and low-dose lithium “can provide anxiolysis and mood stabilization, especially if a rapid effect is required, usually within a week.”

However, Dr. Raby cautioned that “it is probably not advisable to maintain patients on disulfiram for periods long than 3 months consecutively because there is a risk of neuropathy and hepatopathology that are not common but are seen often enough.” He usually interrupts treatment for a month and then resumes if necessary.

The research was partially supported by the Tsukuba Clinical Research and Development Organization from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The authors and Dr. Raby have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of Braxia Scientific.

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

Disulfiram, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for the treatment of chronic alcohol dependence, shows promise as a potential anxiolytic, early research suggests.

Japanese researchers, headed by Akiyoshi Saitoh, PhD, professor in the department of pharmacy, Tokyo University of Science, compared the reactions of mice that received a classic anxiolytic agent (diazepam) to those that received disulfiram while performing a maze task and found comparable reductions in anxiety in both groups of mice.

Moreover, unlike diazepam, disulfiram caused no sedation, amnesia, or impairments in coordination.

“These results indicate that disulfiram can be used safely by elderly patients suffering from anxiety and insomnia and has the potential to become a breakthrough psychotropic drug,” Dr. Saitoh said in a press release.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
 

Inhibitory function

Disulfiram inhibits the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), which is responsible for alcohol metabolism. Recent research suggests that disulfiram may have broader inhibitory functions.

In particular, it inhibits the cytoplasmic protein FROUNT, preventing it from interacting with two chemokine receptors (CCR2 and CCRs) that are involved in cellular signaling pathways and are associated with regulating behaviors, including anxiety, in rodents, the authors write.

“Although the functions of FROUNT-chemokines signaling in the immune system are well documented, the potential role of CNS-expressed FROUNT chemokine–related molecules as neuromodulators remains largely unknown,” they write.

The researchers had been conducting preclinical research on the secondary pharmacologic properties of disulfiram and “coincidentally discovered” its “anxiolytic-like effects.” They investigated these effects further because currently used anxiolytics – i.e., benzodiazepines – have unwanted side effects.

The researchers utilized an elevated plus-maze (EPM) test to investigate the effects of disulfiram in mice. The EPM apparatus consists of four arms set in a cross pattern and are connected to a central square. Of these, two arms are protected by vertical boundaries, while the other two have unprotected edges. Typically, mice with anxiety prefer to spend time in the closed arms. The mice also underwent other tests of coordination and the ability to navigate a Y-maze.

Some mice received disulfiram, others received a benzodiazepine, and others received merely a “vehicle,” which served as a control.

Disulfiram “significantly and dose-dependently” increased the time spent in the open arms of the EPM, compared with the vehicle-treated group, at 30 minutes after administration (F [3, 30] = 16.64; P < .0001), suggesting less anxiety. The finding was confirmed by a Bonferroni analysis that showed a significant effect of disulfiram, compared with the vehicle-treated group, at all three doses (20 mg/kg: t = 0.9894; P > .05; 40 mg/kg: t = 3.863; P < .01; 80 mg/kg: t = 6.417; P < .001).

A Student’s t-test analysis showed that diazepam likewise had a significant effect, compared to the vehicle (t = 5.038; P < .001).

Disulfiram also “significantly and dose-dependently” increased the percentage of open-arm entries (F [3, 30] = 14.24; P < .0001). The Bonferroni analysis showed this effect at all three doses (20 mg/kg: t = 0.3999; P > .05; 40 mg/kg: t = 2.693; P > .05; 80 mg/kg: t = 5.864; P < .001).

Diazepam similarly showed a significant effect, compared to the vehicle condition (t = 3.733; P < .005).

In particular, the 40 mg/kg dose of disulfiram significantly increased the percentage of time spent in the open arms at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after administration, with the peak effect occurring at 30 minutes.

The researchers examined the effect of cyanamide, another ALDH inhibitor, on the anxiety behaviors of mice and found no effect on the number of open-arm entries or percentage of time the mice spent in the open arm, compared with the vehicle condition.

In contrast to diazepam, disulfiram had no effect on the amount of spontaneous locomotor activity, time spent on the rotarod, or activity on the Y-maze test displayed by the mice, “suggesting that there were no apparent sedative effects at the dosages used.” Moreover, unlike the mice treated with diazepam, there were no increases in the number of falls the mice experienced on the rotarod.

Glutamate levels in the prelimbic-prefrontal cortex (PL-PFC) “play an important role in the development of anxiety-like behavior in mice,” the authors state. Disulfiram “significantly and completely attenuated increased extracellular glutamate levels in the PL-PFC during stress exposure” on the EPM.

“We propose that DSF inhibits FROUNT protein and the chemokine signaling pathways under its influence, which may suppress presynaptic glutamatergic transmission in the brain,” said Dr. Saitoh. “This, in turn, attenuates the levels of glutamate in the brain, reducing overall anxiety.”
 

Humanity’s most common affliction

Commenting for this news organization, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, noted that there is a “renewed interest in psychiatry in excitatory and inhibitory balance – for example, ketamine represents a treatment that facilitates excitatory activity, while neurosteroids are candidate medicines now for inhibitory activity.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is the chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, and was not involved with the study, said it is believed “that the excitatory-inhibitory balance may be relevant to brain health and disease.”

Dr. McIntyre also pointed out that the study “highlights not only the repurposing of a well-known medicine but also exploit[s] the potential brain therapeutic effects of immune targets that indirectly affect inhibitory systems, resulting in potentially a safer treatment for anxiety – the most common affliction of humanity.”

Also commenting for this article, Wilfrid Noel Raby, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., called disulfiram “grossly underused for alcohol use disorders and even more so when people use alcohol and cocaine.”

Dr. Raby, who was not involved with the study, has found that patients withdrawing from cocaine, cannabis, or stimulants “can respond very well to disulfiram [not only] in terms of their cravings but also in terms of mood stabilization and anxiolysis.”

He has also found that for patients with bipolar disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with depression disulfiram and low-dose lithium “can provide anxiolysis and mood stabilization, especially if a rapid effect is required, usually within a week.”

However, Dr. Raby cautioned that “it is probably not advisable to maintain patients on disulfiram for periods long than 3 months consecutively because there is a risk of neuropathy and hepatopathology that are not common but are seen often enough.” He usually interrupts treatment for a month and then resumes if necessary.

The research was partially supported by the Tsukuba Clinical Research and Development Organization from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The authors and Dr. Raby have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of Braxia Scientific.

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

Disulfiram, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for the treatment of chronic alcohol dependence, shows promise as a potential anxiolytic, early research suggests.

Japanese researchers, headed by Akiyoshi Saitoh, PhD, professor in the department of pharmacy, Tokyo University of Science, compared the reactions of mice that received a classic anxiolytic agent (diazepam) to those that received disulfiram while performing a maze task and found comparable reductions in anxiety in both groups of mice.

Moreover, unlike diazepam, disulfiram caused no sedation, amnesia, or impairments in coordination.

“These results indicate that disulfiram can be used safely by elderly patients suffering from anxiety and insomnia and has the potential to become a breakthrough psychotropic drug,” Dr. Saitoh said in a press release.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
 

Inhibitory function

Disulfiram inhibits the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), which is responsible for alcohol metabolism. Recent research suggests that disulfiram may have broader inhibitory functions.

In particular, it inhibits the cytoplasmic protein FROUNT, preventing it from interacting with two chemokine receptors (CCR2 and CCRs) that are involved in cellular signaling pathways and are associated with regulating behaviors, including anxiety, in rodents, the authors write.

“Although the functions of FROUNT-chemokines signaling in the immune system are well documented, the potential role of CNS-expressed FROUNT chemokine–related molecules as neuromodulators remains largely unknown,” they write.

The researchers had been conducting preclinical research on the secondary pharmacologic properties of disulfiram and “coincidentally discovered” its “anxiolytic-like effects.” They investigated these effects further because currently used anxiolytics – i.e., benzodiazepines – have unwanted side effects.

The researchers utilized an elevated plus-maze (EPM) test to investigate the effects of disulfiram in mice. The EPM apparatus consists of four arms set in a cross pattern and are connected to a central square. Of these, two arms are protected by vertical boundaries, while the other two have unprotected edges. Typically, mice with anxiety prefer to spend time in the closed arms. The mice also underwent other tests of coordination and the ability to navigate a Y-maze.

Some mice received disulfiram, others received a benzodiazepine, and others received merely a “vehicle,” which served as a control.

Disulfiram “significantly and dose-dependently” increased the time spent in the open arms of the EPM, compared with the vehicle-treated group, at 30 minutes after administration (F [3, 30] = 16.64; P < .0001), suggesting less anxiety. The finding was confirmed by a Bonferroni analysis that showed a significant effect of disulfiram, compared with the vehicle-treated group, at all three doses (20 mg/kg: t = 0.9894; P > .05; 40 mg/kg: t = 3.863; P < .01; 80 mg/kg: t = 6.417; P < .001).

A Student’s t-test analysis showed that diazepam likewise had a significant effect, compared to the vehicle (t = 5.038; P < .001).

Disulfiram also “significantly and dose-dependently” increased the percentage of open-arm entries (F [3, 30] = 14.24; P < .0001). The Bonferroni analysis showed this effect at all three doses (20 mg/kg: t = 0.3999; P > .05; 40 mg/kg: t = 2.693; P > .05; 80 mg/kg: t = 5.864; P < .001).

Diazepam similarly showed a significant effect, compared to the vehicle condition (t = 3.733; P < .005).

In particular, the 40 mg/kg dose of disulfiram significantly increased the percentage of time spent in the open arms at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after administration, with the peak effect occurring at 30 minutes.

The researchers examined the effect of cyanamide, another ALDH inhibitor, on the anxiety behaviors of mice and found no effect on the number of open-arm entries or percentage of time the mice spent in the open arm, compared with the vehicle condition.

In contrast to diazepam, disulfiram had no effect on the amount of spontaneous locomotor activity, time spent on the rotarod, or activity on the Y-maze test displayed by the mice, “suggesting that there were no apparent sedative effects at the dosages used.” Moreover, unlike the mice treated with diazepam, there were no increases in the number of falls the mice experienced on the rotarod.

Glutamate levels in the prelimbic-prefrontal cortex (PL-PFC) “play an important role in the development of anxiety-like behavior in mice,” the authors state. Disulfiram “significantly and completely attenuated increased extracellular glutamate levels in the PL-PFC during stress exposure” on the EPM.

“We propose that DSF inhibits FROUNT protein and the chemokine signaling pathways under its influence, which may suppress presynaptic glutamatergic transmission in the brain,” said Dr. Saitoh. “This, in turn, attenuates the levels of glutamate in the brain, reducing overall anxiety.”
 

Humanity’s most common affliction

Commenting for this news organization, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, noted that there is a “renewed interest in psychiatry in excitatory and inhibitory balance – for example, ketamine represents a treatment that facilitates excitatory activity, while neurosteroids are candidate medicines now for inhibitory activity.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is the chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, and was not involved with the study, said it is believed “that the excitatory-inhibitory balance may be relevant to brain health and disease.”

Dr. McIntyre also pointed out that the study “highlights not only the repurposing of a well-known medicine but also exploit[s] the potential brain therapeutic effects of immune targets that indirectly affect inhibitory systems, resulting in potentially a safer treatment for anxiety – the most common affliction of humanity.”

Also commenting for this article, Wilfrid Noel Raby, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., called disulfiram “grossly underused for alcohol use disorders and even more so when people use alcohol and cocaine.”

Dr. Raby, who was not involved with the study, has found that patients withdrawing from cocaine, cannabis, or stimulants “can respond very well to disulfiram [not only] in terms of their cravings but also in terms of mood stabilization and anxiolysis.”

He has also found that for patients with bipolar disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with depression disulfiram and low-dose lithium “can provide anxiolysis and mood stabilization, especially if a rapid effect is required, usually within a week.”

However, Dr. Raby cautioned that “it is probably not advisable to maintain patients on disulfiram for periods long than 3 months consecutively because there is a risk of neuropathy and hepatopathology that are not common but are seen often enough.” He usually interrupts treatment for a month and then resumes if necessary.

The research was partially supported by the Tsukuba Clinical Research and Development Organization from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The authors and Dr. Raby have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of Braxia Scientific.

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

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

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

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

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

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

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

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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