Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis of KEYNOTE-564 demonstrates that pembrolizumab continues to show consistent and clinically meaningful improvement in disease-free survival for patients at high risk of a renal cell carcinoma recurrence.

The updated analysis was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The study, which was led by Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, found no increase in high-grade, or other, adverse events with 30 months of follow-up.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in combination with axitinib, as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The combination is also recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology for advanced RCC.

KEYNOTE-564 is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo after surgery in participants with renal cell carcinoma. In previously presented interim KEYNOTE-564 results, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival for adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo was met in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).

KEYNOTE-564 includes 994 patients (mean age, 60 years; 71% male) with confirmed clear cell RCC who were either intermediate to high risk, high risk, or M1 with no evidence of disease after surgery. All patients had surgery 12 or fewer weeks prior to randomization.

At 30.1 months, the disease-free survival difference in the intent-to-treat population between pembrolizumab and placebo at 78.3% versus 67.3% had a HR of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.80; nominal P < .0001), greater than the 77.3% versus 68.1% difference at 24.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).

Analysis of disease-free survival by recurrence risk subgroups showed an increasing benefit with increasing risk. In the intermediate- to high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 81.1% and 72.0% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). In the high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 48.7% and 35.4%, respectively (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10). In the M1 NED group, the rates were 78.4% and 37.9% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66).

During a discussion about the presentation, Daniel M Geynisman, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, pointed to the respective absolute differences between pembrolizumab and placebo of 9% in the intermediate- to high-risk group, 13% in the high-risk group, and a “whopping difference of 41% in the M1 NED group,” but underscored that the M1 NED population represents only a small part of the trial population (5.8%). The same relationship was evident among sarcomatoid status subgroups, with 24-month absolute differences of 10.1% favoring pembrolizumab (HR, 0.63) with sarcomatoid features absent and 19.8% (HR, 0.54) when they were present.

Overall survival estimates showed an increasing benefit for pembrolizumab versus placebo (96.6% vs. 93.5%; HR, 0.54) at 24.1 months (96.2% vs. 93.8%, HR, 0.52), but this wasn’t statistically significance because the data collection was incomplete.

Between 24.1 months and 30.1 months, rates of treatment-related adverse events remained the same at 79.1% for pembrolizumab and 53.4% for placebo, with a treatment-related discontinuations in the pembrolizumab group at 17.6% and 18.6% at 24.1 and 30.1 months, respectively.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A new analysis of KEYNOTE-564 demonstrates that pembrolizumab continues to show consistent and clinically meaningful improvement in disease-free survival for patients at high risk of a renal cell carcinoma recurrence.

The updated analysis was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The study, which was led by Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, found no increase in high-grade, or other, adverse events with 30 months of follow-up.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in combination with axitinib, as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The combination is also recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology for advanced RCC.

KEYNOTE-564 is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo after surgery in participants with renal cell carcinoma. In previously presented interim KEYNOTE-564 results, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival for adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo was met in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).

KEYNOTE-564 includes 994 patients (mean age, 60 years; 71% male) with confirmed clear cell RCC who were either intermediate to high risk, high risk, or M1 with no evidence of disease after surgery. All patients had surgery 12 or fewer weeks prior to randomization.

At 30.1 months, the disease-free survival difference in the intent-to-treat population between pembrolizumab and placebo at 78.3% versus 67.3% had a HR of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.80; nominal P < .0001), greater than the 77.3% versus 68.1% difference at 24.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).

Analysis of disease-free survival by recurrence risk subgroups showed an increasing benefit with increasing risk. In the intermediate- to high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 81.1% and 72.0% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). In the high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 48.7% and 35.4%, respectively (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10). In the M1 NED group, the rates were 78.4% and 37.9% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66).

During a discussion about the presentation, Daniel M Geynisman, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, pointed to the respective absolute differences between pembrolizumab and placebo of 9% in the intermediate- to high-risk group, 13% in the high-risk group, and a “whopping difference of 41% in the M1 NED group,” but underscored that the M1 NED population represents only a small part of the trial population (5.8%). The same relationship was evident among sarcomatoid status subgroups, with 24-month absolute differences of 10.1% favoring pembrolizumab (HR, 0.63) with sarcomatoid features absent and 19.8% (HR, 0.54) when they were present.

Overall survival estimates showed an increasing benefit for pembrolizumab versus placebo (96.6% vs. 93.5%; HR, 0.54) at 24.1 months (96.2% vs. 93.8%, HR, 0.52), but this wasn’t statistically significance because the data collection was incomplete.

Between 24.1 months and 30.1 months, rates of treatment-related adverse events remained the same at 79.1% for pembrolizumab and 53.4% for placebo, with a treatment-related discontinuations in the pembrolizumab group at 17.6% and 18.6% at 24.1 and 30.1 months, respectively.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A new analysis of KEYNOTE-564 demonstrates that pembrolizumab continues to show consistent and clinically meaningful improvement in disease-free survival for patients at high risk of a renal cell carcinoma recurrence.

The updated analysis was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The study, which was led by Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, found no increase in high-grade, or other, adverse events with 30 months of follow-up.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in combination with axitinib, as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The combination is also recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology for advanced RCC.

KEYNOTE-564 is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo after surgery in participants with renal cell carcinoma. In previously presented interim KEYNOTE-564 results, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival for adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo was met in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).

KEYNOTE-564 includes 994 patients (mean age, 60 years; 71% male) with confirmed clear cell RCC who were either intermediate to high risk, high risk, or M1 with no evidence of disease after surgery. All patients had surgery 12 or fewer weeks prior to randomization.

At 30.1 months, the disease-free survival difference in the intent-to-treat population between pembrolizumab and placebo at 78.3% versus 67.3% had a HR of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.80; nominal P < .0001), greater than the 77.3% versus 68.1% difference at 24.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).

Analysis of disease-free survival by recurrence risk subgroups showed an increasing benefit with increasing risk. In the intermediate- to high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 81.1% and 72.0% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). In the high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 48.7% and 35.4%, respectively (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10). In the M1 NED group, the rates were 78.4% and 37.9% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66).

During a discussion about the presentation, Daniel M Geynisman, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, pointed to the respective absolute differences between pembrolizumab and placebo of 9% in the intermediate- to high-risk group, 13% in the high-risk group, and a “whopping difference of 41% in the M1 NED group,” but underscored that the M1 NED population represents only a small part of the trial population (5.8%). The same relationship was evident among sarcomatoid status subgroups, with 24-month absolute differences of 10.1% favoring pembrolizumab (HR, 0.63) with sarcomatoid features absent and 19.8% (HR, 0.54) when they were present.

Overall survival estimates showed an increasing benefit for pembrolizumab versus placebo (96.6% vs. 93.5%; HR, 0.54) at 24.1 months (96.2% vs. 93.8%, HR, 0.52), but this wasn’t statistically significance because the data collection was incomplete.

Between 24.1 months and 30.1 months, rates of treatment-related adverse events remained the same at 79.1% for pembrolizumab and 53.4% for placebo, with a treatment-related discontinuations in the pembrolizumab group at 17.6% and 18.6% at 24.1 and 30.1 months, respectively.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains a challenging disease to diagnose, but recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. One method involves use of MRI to detect central vein sign (CVS) in MRI images. The CVS is a hypointense vessel at the center of a hyperintense focal lesion, and various retrospective analyses have revealed an association between a greater percentage of lesions being CVS and a diagnosis of MS.

“This is a very frequent finding in MS patients, but it’s a very infrequent finding in non-MS patients, specifically radiological mimics or clinical mimics that are typically confused with MS at the time of clinical diagnosis, and could lead to misdiagnosis. The idea here of a central vein sign is to use it diagnostically as early as possible in the evaluation of the MS, and use it as complementary to the existing McDonald criteria to improve sensitivity and specificity,” Pascal Sati, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sati presented an overview of the topic at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS). He is associate professor of neurology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and the director of the neuroimaging program in the department of neurology at Cedars Sinai.

The findings could address an important issue in MS. “Misdiagnosis is a big problem in multiple sclerosis, and it has been for a long time. There are recent surveys of physicians that show that something like 95% of MS physicians have seen a case of misdiagnosis in the last year,” Kevin Patel, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Patel is assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderated the session where Dr. Sati presented.
 

What is the diagnostic threshold of CVS positivity?

A key question is what percentage of lesions should be CVS positive (CVS+) to predict a diagnosis of MS. One meta-analysis found that an average of 73% CVS positivity in MS patients, but levels below 40% in conditions that can mimic MS, such as migraine (22%), cerebral small vessel disease (28.5%), and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (33.5%). However, both biological and technical effects can influence that percentage. The percentage is lower among older patients with MS, and those with vascular comorbidities, likely due to noninflammatory or ischemic plaques, or other lesion types, said Dr. Sati.

On the technical side, lower field strengths tend to reveal a lower proportion of CVS than higher field strengths, which are more sensitive. However, the choice of MRI technique can influence sensitivity, and the optimized T2* EPI and FLAIR* techniques have been shown to reveal higher percentages of CVS, even at lower field strengths like the commonly available 3-T.

Forty percent CVS positivity has been suggested as a diagnostic for MS, but this can be time consuming to determine in patients with large numbers of lesions. An alternative is to analyze a subset of lesions and make a diagnosis if these lesions display the CVS. For example, ‘Select 3*’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 3 brain lesions have the CVS, or the ‘6-lesion rule’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 6 out 10 brain lesions have the CVS. Recent retrospective studies have supported these simplified diagnostic criteria, suggesting that these approaches perform similarly to the 40% rule.
 

What will change clinical practice?

However, retrospective studies aren’t enough to change international diagnostic guidelines and clinical practice. Dr. Sati is part of a group of investigators from the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative that is conducting a large prospective diagnostic study (CAVS-MS) with a $7.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, which is currently recruiting 400 patients being evaluated for MS. The MRI protocol will use the optimized T2* EPI/FLAIR* techniques developed by Dr. Sati on 3-T scanners. “It’s a twofold goal: First the evaluation of the diagnostic power of the central vein sign in a real-world cohort, and then the validation of the advanced MRI technology that we’re developing to image the central vein sign clinically,” said Dr. Sati.

Neurologists generally are becoming more aware of these techniques, according to Dr. Patel, but they aren’t yet widely used outside of research settings.

“We haven’t collected enough evidence to really warrant wide implementation. I suspect that that’s one of the major reasons why it is that we don’t see this deployed more widely. I think there’ll be a bit of time before this is integrated to the standard sequences that are done for evaluation of multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Patel.

The technique must contend with comorbid factors, especially vascular comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, that can cause white matter hyperintensities as individuals age. “This can create difficulties with using this procedure, because if you have small vessel disease at the same time you have MS, you have much more T2 lesion volume. It becomes a little bit more difficult to suss out whether the person has MS. So there’s a little bit of work that needs to be done along those lines as well,” said Dr. Patel.

With more research, the technology has the potential to improve MS diagnosis, both among community neurologists and even among specialists, according to Dr. Patel. “There are definitely cases that are rather ambiguous that even though they present at a major academic center, it’s sometimes very difficult for us to determine as to whether the person has multiple sclerosis or not. And this sort of technique can potentially help us in distinguishing those cases. Sometimes even after they see folks at tertiary centers, folks still don’t have a definitive diagnosis,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Sati and Dr. Patel have no relevant financial disclosures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains a challenging disease to diagnose, but recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. One method involves use of MRI to detect central vein sign (CVS) in MRI images. The CVS is a hypointense vessel at the center of a hyperintense focal lesion, and various retrospective analyses have revealed an association between a greater percentage of lesions being CVS and a diagnosis of MS.

“This is a very frequent finding in MS patients, but it’s a very infrequent finding in non-MS patients, specifically radiological mimics or clinical mimics that are typically confused with MS at the time of clinical diagnosis, and could lead to misdiagnosis. The idea here of a central vein sign is to use it diagnostically as early as possible in the evaluation of the MS, and use it as complementary to the existing McDonald criteria to improve sensitivity and specificity,” Pascal Sati, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sati presented an overview of the topic at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS). He is associate professor of neurology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and the director of the neuroimaging program in the department of neurology at Cedars Sinai.

The findings could address an important issue in MS. “Misdiagnosis is a big problem in multiple sclerosis, and it has been for a long time. There are recent surveys of physicians that show that something like 95% of MS physicians have seen a case of misdiagnosis in the last year,” Kevin Patel, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Patel is assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderated the session where Dr. Sati presented.
 

What is the diagnostic threshold of CVS positivity?

A key question is what percentage of lesions should be CVS positive (CVS+) to predict a diagnosis of MS. One meta-analysis found that an average of 73% CVS positivity in MS patients, but levels below 40% in conditions that can mimic MS, such as migraine (22%), cerebral small vessel disease (28.5%), and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (33.5%). However, both biological and technical effects can influence that percentage. The percentage is lower among older patients with MS, and those with vascular comorbidities, likely due to noninflammatory or ischemic plaques, or other lesion types, said Dr. Sati.

On the technical side, lower field strengths tend to reveal a lower proportion of CVS than higher field strengths, which are more sensitive. However, the choice of MRI technique can influence sensitivity, and the optimized T2* EPI and FLAIR* techniques have been shown to reveal higher percentages of CVS, even at lower field strengths like the commonly available 3-T.

Forty percent CVS positivity has been suggested as a diagnostic for MS, but this can be time consuming to determine in patients with large numbers of lesions. An alternative is to analyze a subset of lesions and make a diagnosis if these lesions display the CVS. For example, ‘Select 3*’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 3 brain lesions have the CVS, or the ‘6-lesion rule’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 6 out 10 brain lesions have the CVS. Recent retrospective studies have supported these simplified diagnostic criteria, suggesting that these approaches perform similarly to the 40% rule.
 

What will change clinical practice?

However, retrospective studies aren’t enough to change international diagnostic guidelines and clinical practice. Dr. Sati is part of a group of investigators from the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative that is conducting a large prospective diagnostic study (CAVS-MS) with a $7.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, which is currently recruiting 400 patients being evaluated for MS. The MRI protocol will use the optimized T2* EPI/FLAIR* techniques developed by Dr. Sati on 3-T scanners. “It’s a twofold goal: First the evaluation of the diagnostic power of the central vein sign in a real-world cohort, and then the validation of the advanced MRI technology that we’re developing to image the central vein sign clinically,” said Dr. Sati.

Neurologists generally are becoming more aware of these techniques, according to Dr. Patel, but they aren’t yet widely used outside of research settings.

“We haven’t collected enough evidence to really warrant wide implementation. I suspect that that’s one of the major reasons why it is that we don’t see this deployed more widely. I think there’ll be a bit of time before this is integrated to the standard sequences that are done for evaluation of multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Patel.

The technique must contend with comorbid factors, especially vascular comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, that can cause white matter hyperintensities as individuals age. “This can create difficulties with using this procedure, because if you have small vessel disease at the same time you have MS, you have much more T2 lesion volume. It becomes a little bit more difficult to suss out whether the person has MS. So there’s a little bit of work that needs to be done along those lines as well,” said Dr. Patel.

With more research, the technology has the potential to improve MS diagnosis, both among community neurologists and even among specialists, according to Dr. Patel. “There are definitely cases that are rather ambiguous that even though they present at a major academic center, it’s sometimes very difficult for us to determine as to whether the person has multiple sclerosis or not. And this sort of technique can potentially help us in distinguishing those cases. Sometimes even after they see folks at tertiary centers, folks still don’t have a definitive diagnosis,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Sati and Dr. Patel have no relevant financial disclosures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains a challenging disease to diagnose, but recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. One method involves use of MRI to detect central vein sign (CVS) in MRI images. The CVS is a hypointense vessel at the center of a hyperintense focal lesion, and various retrospective analyses have revealed an association between a greater percentage of lesions being CVS and a diagnosis of MS.

“This is a very frequent finding in MS patients, but it’s a very infrequent finding in non-MS patients, specifically radiological mimics or clinical mimics that are typically confused with MS at the time of clinical diagnosis, and could lead to misdiagnosis. The idea here of a central vein sign is to use it diagnostically as early as possible in the evaluation of the MS, and use it as complementary to the existing McDonald criteria to improve sensitivity and specificity,” Pascal Sati, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sati presented an overview of the topic at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS). He is associate professor of neurology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and the director of the neuroimaging program in the department of neurology at Cedars Sinai.

The findings could address an important issue in MS. “Misdiagnosis is a big problem in multiple sclerosis, and it has been for a long time. There are recent surveys of physicians that show that something like 95% of MS physicians have seen a case of misdiagnosis in the last year,” Kevin Patel, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Patel is assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderated the session where Dr. Sati presented.
 

What is the diagnostic threshold of CVS positivity?

A key question is what percentage of lesions should be CVS positive (CVS+) to predict a diagnosis of MS. One meta-analysis found that an average of 73% CVS positivity in MS patients, but levels below 40% in conditions that can mimic MS, such as migraine (22%), cerebral small vessel disease (28.5%), and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (33.5%). However, both biological and technical effects can influence that percentage. The percentage is lower among older patients with MS, and those with vascular comorbidities, likely due to noninflammatory or ischemic plaques, or other lesion types, said Dr. Sati.

On the technical side, lower field strengths tend to reveal a lower proportion of CVS than higher field strengths, which are more sensitive. However, the choice of MRI technique can influence sensitivity, and the optimized T2* EPI and FLAIR* techniques have been shown to reveal higher percentages of CVS, even at lower field strengths like the commonly available 3-T.

Forty percent CVS positivity has been suggested as a diagnostic for MS, but this can be time consuming to determine in patients with large numbers of lesions. An alternative is to analyze a subset of lesions and make a diagnosis if these lesions display the CVS. For example, ‘Select 3*’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 3 brain lesions have the CVS, or the ‘6-lesion rule’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 6 out 10 brain lesions have the CVS. Recent retrospective studies have supported these simplified diagnostic criteria, suggesting that these approaches perform similarly to the 40% rule.
 

What will change clinical practice?

However, retrospective studies aren’t enough to change international diagnostic guidelines and clinical practice. Dr. Sati is part of a group of investigators from the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative that is conducting a large prospective diagnostic study (CAVS-MS) with a $7.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, which is currently recruiting 400 patients being evaluated for MS. The MRI protocol will use the optimized T2* EPI/FLAIR* techniques developed by Dr. Sati on 3-T scanners. “It’s a twofold goal: First the evaluation of the diagnostic power of the central vein sign in a real-world cohort, and then the validation of the advanced MRI technology that we’re developing to image the central vein sign clinically,” said Dr. Sati.

Neurologists generally are becoming more aware of these techniques, according to Dr. Patel, but they aren’t yet widely used outside of research settings.

“We haven’t collected enough evidence to really warrant wide implementation. I suspect that that’s one of the major reasons why it is that we don’t see this deployed more widely. I think there’ll be a bit of time before this is integrated to the standard sequences that are done for evaluation of multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Patel.

The technique must contend with comorbid factors, especially vascular comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, that can cause white matter hyperintensities as individuals age. “This can create difficulties with using this procedure, because if you have small vessel disease at the same time you have MS, you have much more T2 lesion volume. It becomes a little bit more difficult to suss out whether the person has MS. So there’s a little bit of work that needs to be done along those lines as well,” said Dr. Patel.

With more research, the technology has the potential to improve MS diagnosis, both among community neurologists and even among specialists, according to Dr. Patel. “There are definitely cases that are rather ambiguous that even though they present at a major academic center, it’s sometimes very difficult for us to determine as to whether the person has multiple sclerosis or not. And this sort of technique can potentially help us in distinguishing those cases. Sometimes even after they see folks at tertiary centers, folks still don’t have a definitive diagnosis,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Sati and Dr. Patel have no relevant financial disclosures.

On March 13, most of the United States and Canada will advance the clock an hour to be on Daylight Saving Time. Most other countries in the Northern Hemisphere will do the same within a few weeks; and many countries across the Southern Hemisphere turn the clock back an hour around the same time. A friend of mine, who spent time on Capitol Hill, once told me that whether it’s adjusting to Daylight Saving Time (and losing an hour of sleep) or switching back to Standard Time (and picking up an hour), large numbers of Americans call their member of Congress every season to complain.

Why are so many of us annoyed by the semi-annual resetting of clocks? It turns out that there are biological reasons for our discomfort with time changes. Those reasons also come into play when we change time zones as we travel, when we work on the night shift, or when we live at higher latitudes, where depressive symptoms from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can plague us as the period of daylight progressively shortens in winter.
 

Our internal clock(s)

Each of us has a biological master clock keeping track of where we are in our 24-hour day, making ongoing time-of-day-appropriate physical and neurologic adjustments. We refer to those automatic adjustments as “circadian” rhythms – from the Latin, for “around a day” rhythms.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

One of the most important regulated functions that is influenced by this time keeping is our sleep-wake cycle. Our brain’s hypothalamus has a kind of “master clock” that receives inputs directly from our eyes, which is how our brain sets our daily cycle period at about 24 hours.

This master clock turns on a tiny structure in our brains, called the pineal gland, to release more of a sleep-inducing chemical, called melatonin, about the same time every evening. The level of melatonin slowly increases to reach maximum deep sleep in the night, then slowly declines as you advance toward morning awakening. The shift from darkness to daylight in the morning, causing your initial morning awakening, releases the excitatory neuromodulator norepinephrine, which, with other chemicals, “turns on the lights” in your brain.

That works well most of the time – but no one told your brain that you were going to arbitrarily go to bed an hour earlier (or in the fall, later) on Circadian Rhythm Time!

We also obviously shift the time on the mechanical clock – requiring a reset of the brain’s master clock – when we travel across time zones or work the night shift. That type of desynchronization of our master clock from the mechanical clock puts our waking and sleeping behaviors out of sync with the production of brain chemicals that affect our alertness and mood. The result may be that you find yourself tired, but not sleepy, and often grumpy or even depressed. As an example, on average, people who work the night shift are just a little bit more anxious and depressed than people who get up to rise and shine with the sun every morning.
 

Seasonal affective disorder

An extreme example of this desynchronization of the master clock can manifest as SAD. SAD is a type of depression that’s related to seasonal transitions. The most commonly cited cases of SAD are for the fall-to-winter transition. In North America, its prevalence is significantly influenced by the distance of one’s place of residence from the equator – with about 12 times the impact in Alaska versus Florida. Of note, a weaker effect of latitude has been recorded in Europe, where more settled populations have had thousands of years to biologically and culturally adapt to their seasonal patterns.

What can we do about our clocks being messed with?

The most common treatment for SAD is light therapy, in which patients sit or work under artificial lights in an early-morning period, to try to advance the chemical signaling that controls sleeping and waking. Alas, light therapy doesn’t work for everyone.

Another approach, with or without the lights, is to engage in activities early in the day that produce brain chemicals to contribute to bright and cheerful waking. Those “raring-to-go” brain chemicals include norepinephrine (produced when you encounter novelty and are just having fun), acetylcholine (produced when you are carefully paying attention and are in a learning and remembering mode), serotonin (produced when you are feeling positive and just a little bit euphoric), and dopamine (produced when you feel happy and all is right with the world).

In fact, you would benefit from creating the habit of starting every day with activity that wakes up your brain. I begin my day with computerized brain exercises that are attentionally demanding, filled with novelty, and richly neurologically rewarding. I then take a brisk morning walk in which I vary my path for the sake of novelty (pumping norepinephrine), pay close attention to my surroundings (pumping acetylcholine and serotonin), and delight in all of the wonderful things out there in my world (pumping dopamine). My dog Doug enjoys this process of waking up brain and body almost as much as I do! Of course, there are a thousand other stimulating things that could help you get your day off to a lively start.

If you anticipate feeling altered by a time change, you could also think about preparing for it in advance. If it’s the semi-annual 1-hour change that throws you off kilter, you might adjust your bedtime by 10 minutes a day for the week before. If you are traveling 12 time zones (and flipping night and day), you may need to make larger adjustments over the preceding couple of weeks. Generally, without that preparation, it takes about 1 day per time zone crossed to naturally adjust your circadian rhythms.

If you’re a little lazier, like me, you might also adjust to jet lag by not forgetting to take along your little bottle of melatonin tablets, to give your pineal gland a little help. Still, that pineal gland will work hard to tell you to take a nap every day – just when you’ll probably want to be wide awake.

And if, after reading this column, you find yourself still annoyed by the upcoming 1-hour time change, you might just look around at what’s happening out there in the world and decide that your troubles are very small by comparison, and that you should delight in the “extra” hour of sunshine each evening!

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, at the University of California, San Francisco. He reported serving in various positions and speaking for Posit Science and Stronger Brain, and has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 13, most of the United States and Canada will advance the clock an hour to be on Daylight Saving Time. Most other countries in the Northern Hemisphere will do the same within a few weeks; and many countries across the Southern Hemisphere turn the clock back an hour around the same time. A friend of mine, who spent time on Capitol Hill, once told me that whether it’s adjusting to Daylight Saving Time (and losing an hour of sleep) or switching back to Standard Time (and picking up an hour), large numbers of Americans call their member of Congress every season to complain.

Why are so many of us annoyed by the semi-annual resetting of clocks? It turns out that there are biological reasons for our discomfort with time changes. Those reasons also come into play when we change time zones as we travel, when we work on the night shift, or when we live at higher latitudes, where depressive symptoms from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can plague us as the period of daylight progressively shortens in winter.
 

Our internal clock(s)

Each of us has a biological master clock keeping track of where we are in our 24-hour day, making ongoing time-of-day-appropriate physical and neurologic adjustments. We refer to those automatic adjustments as “circadian” rhythms – from the Latin, for “around a day” rhythms.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

One of the most important regulated functions that is influenced by this time keeping is our sleep-wake cycle. Our brain’s hypothalamus has a kind of “master clock” that receives inputs directly from our eyes, which is how our brain sets our daily cycle period at about 24 hours.

This master clock turns on a tiny structure in our brains, called the pineal gland, to release more of a sleep-inducing chemical, called melatonin, about the same time every evening. The level of melatonin slowly increases to reach maximum deep sleep in the night, then slowly declines as you advance toward morning awakening. The shift from darkness to daylight in the morning, causing your initial morning awakening, releases the excitatory neuromodulator norepinephrine, which, with other chemicals, “turns on the lights” in your brain.

That works well most of the time – but no one told your brain that you were going to arbitrarily go to bed an hour earlier (or in the fall, later) on Circadian Rhythm Time!

We also obviously shift the time on the mechanical clock – requiring a reset of the brain’s master clock – when we travel across time zones or work the night shift. That type of desynchronization of our master clock from the mechanical clock puts our waking and sleeping behaviors out of sync with the production of brain chemicals that affect our alertness and mood. The result may be that you find yourself tired, but not sleepy, and often grumpy or even depressed. As an example, on average, people who work the night shift are just a little bit more anxious and depressed than people who get up to rise and shine with the sun every morning.
 

Seasonal affective disorder

An extreme example of this desynchronization of the master clock can manifest as SAD. SAD is a type of depression that’s related to seasonal transitions. The most commonly cited cases of SAD are for the fall-to-winter transition. In North America, its prevalence is significantly influenced by the distance of one’s place of residence from the equator – with about 12 times the impact in Alaska versus Florida. Of note, a weaker effect of latitude has been recorded in Europe, where more settled populations have had thousands of years to biologically and culturally adapt to their seasonal patterns.

What can we do about our clocks being messed with?

The most common treatment for SAD is light therapy, in which patients sit or work under artificial lights in an early-morning period, to try to advance the chemical signaling that controls sleeping and waking. Alas, light therapy doesn’t work for everyone.

Another approach, with or without the lights, is to engage in activities early in the day that produce brain chemicals to contribute to bright and cheerful waking. Those “raring-to-go” brain chemicals include norepinephrine (produced when you encounter novelty and are just having fun), acetylcholine (produced when you are carefully paying attention and are in a learning and remembering mode), serotonin (produced when you are feeling positive and just a little bit euphoric), and dopamine (produced when you feel happy and all is right with the world).

In fact, you would benefit from creating the habit of starting every day with activity that wakes up your brain. I begin my day with computerized brain exercises that are attentionally demanding, filled with novelty, and richly neurologically rewarding. I then take a brisk morning walk in which I vary my path for the sake of novelty (pumping norepinephrine), pay close attention to my surroundings (pumping acetylcholine and serotonin), and delight in all of the wonderful things out there in my world (pumping dopamine). My dog Doug enjoys this process of waking up brain and body almost as much as I do! Of course, there are a thousand other stimulating things that could help you get your day off to a lively start.

If you anticipate feeling altered by a time change, you could also think about preparing for it in advance. If it’s the semi-annual 1-hour change that throws you off kilter, you might adjust your bedtime by 10 minutes a day for the week before. If you are traveling 12 time zones (and flipping night and day), you may need to make larger adjustments over the preceding couple of weeks. Generally, without that preparation, it takes about 1 day per time zone crossed to naturally adjust your circadian rhythms.

If you’re a little lazier, like me, you might also adjust to jet lag by not forgetting to take along your little bottle of melatonin tablets, to give your pineal gland a little help. Still, that pineal gland will work hard to tell you to take a nap every day – just when you’ll probably want to be wide awake.

And if, after reading this column, you find yourself still annoyed by the upcoming 1-hour time change, you might just look around at what’s happening out there in the world and decide that your troubles are very small by comparison, and that you should delight in the “extra” hour of sunshine each evening!

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, at the University of California, San Francisco. He reported serving in various positions and speaking for Posit Science and Stronger Brain, and has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 13, most of the United States and Canada will advance the clock an hour to be on Daylight Saving Time. Most other countries in the Northern Hemisphere will do the same within a few weeks; and many countries across the Southern Hemisphere turn the clock back an hour around the same time. A friend of mine, who spent time on Capitol Hill, once told me that whether it’s adjusting to Daylight Saving Time (and losing an hour of sleep) or switching back to Standard Time (and picking up an hour), large numbers of Americans call their member of Congress every season to complain.

Why are so many of us annoyed by the semi-annual resetting of clocks? It turns out that there are biological reasons for our discomfort with time changes. Those reasons also come into play when we change time zones as we travel, when we work on the night shift, or when we live at higher latitudes, where depressive symptoms from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can plague us as the period of daylight progressively shortens in winter.
 

Our internal clock(s)

Each of us has a biological master clock keeping track of where we are in our 24-hour day, making ongoing time-of-day-appropriate physical and neurologic adjustments. We refer to those automatic adjustments as “circadian” rhythms – from the Latin, for “around a day” rhythms.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

One of the most important regulated functions that is influenced by this time keeping is our sleep-wake cycle. Our brain’s hypothalamus has a kind of “master clock” that receives inputs directly from our eyes, which is how our brain sets our daily cycle period at about 24 hours.

This master clock turns on a tiny structure in our brains, called the pineal gland, to release more of a sleep-inducing chemical, called melatonin, about the same time every evening. The level of melatonin slowly increases to reach maximum deep sleep in the night, then slowly declines as you advance toward morning awakening. The shift from darkness to daylight in the morning, causing your initial morning awakening, releases the excitatory neuromodulator norepinephrine, which, with other chemicals, “turns on the lights” in your brain.

That works well most of the time – but no one told your brain that you were going to arbitrarily go to bed an hour earlier (or in the fall, later) on Circadian Rhythm Time!

We also obviously shift the time on the mechanical clock – requiring a reset of the brain’s master clock – when we travel across time zones or work the night shift. That type of desynchronization of our master clock from the mechanical clock puts our waking and sleeping behaviors out of sync with the production of brain chemicals that affect our alertness and mood. The result may be that you find yourself tired, but not sleepy, and often grumpy or even depressed. As an example, on average, people who work the night shift are just a little bit more anxious and depressed than people who get up to rise and shine with the sun every morning.
 

Seasonal affective disorder

An extreme example of this desynchronization of the master clock can manifest as SAD. SAD is a type of depression that’s related to seasonal transitions. The most commonly cited cases of SAD are for the fall-to-winter transition. In North America, its prevalence is significantly influenced by the distance of one’s place of residence from the equator – with about 12 times the impact in Alaska versus Florida. Of note, a weaker effect of latitude has been recorded in Europe, where more settled populations have had thousands of years to biologically and culturally adapt to their seasonal patterns.

What can we do about our clocks being messed with?

The most common treatment for SAD is light therapy, in which patients sit or work under artificial lights in an early-morning period, to try to advance the chemical signaling that controls sleeping and waking. Alas, light therapy doesn’t work for everyone.

Another approach, with or without the lights, is to engage in activities early in the day that produce brain chemicals to contribute to bright and cheerful waking. Those “raring-to-go” brain chemicals include norepinephrine (produced when you encounter novelty and are just having fun), acetylcholine (produced when you are carefully paying attention and are in a learning and remembering mode), serotonin (produced when you are feeling positive and just a little bit euphoric), and dopamine (produced when you feel happy and all is right with the world).

In fact, you would benefit from creating the habit of starting every day with activity that wakes up your brain. I begin my day with computerized brain exercises that are attentionally demanding, filled with novelty, and richly neurologically rewarding. I then take a brisk morning walk in which I vary my path for the sake of novelty (pumping norepinephrine), pay close attention to my surroundings (pumping acetylcholine and serotonin), and delight in all of the wonderful things out there in my world (pumping dopamine). My dog Doug enjoys this process of waking up brain and body almost as much as I do! Of course, there are a thousand other stimulating things that could help you get your day off to a lively start.

If you anticipate feeling altered by a time change, you could also think about preparing for it in advance. If it’s the semi-annual 1-hour change that throws you off kilter, you might adjust your bedtime by 10 minutes a day for the week before. If you are traveling 12 time zones (and flipping night and day), you may need to make larger adjustments over the preceding couple of weeks. Generally, without that preparation, it takes about 1 day per time zone crossed to naturally adjust your circadian rhythms.

If you’re a little lazier, like me, you might also adjust to jet lag by not forgetting to take along your little bottle of melatonin tablets, to give your pineal gland a little help. Still, that pineal gland will work hard to tell you to take a nap every day – just when you’ll probably want to be wide awake.

And if, after reading this column, you find yourself still annoyed by the upcoming 1-hour time change, you might just look around at what’s happening out there in the world and decide that your troubles are very small by comparison, and that you should delight in the “extra” hour of sunshine each evening!

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, at the University of California, San Francisco. He reported serving in various positions and speaking for Posit Science and Stronger Brain, and has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

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

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

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

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

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

If you’re among those people in the United States who never had COVID-19, how should you think about your risk?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of people in the United States are in the never-got-COVID category.

The CDC estimated that by the end of January, 43.4% in the United States had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 triggered by infection, not by vaccination — suggesting nearly 60% of people have never been infected.

Now mask mandates are lifting, and daily case and death numbers are plunging. According to the New York Times tracker, new cases are down 51% for the past 2 weeks, and deaths have fallen 30% in that period.

So as those who have so far escaped the virus venture further out into reopened environments, should they worry more or less about risk than their previously infected counterparts?

Some experts weigh in with caution against feeling invincible.
 

No “suit of armor”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that science has not been able to determine why some people have been able to be stay COVID-free when the virus was raging and exposure was ubiquitous.

He said it’s important to remember that though some people think they have never had COVID, they may have been asymptomatic or attributed mild symptoms to something else.

“People may have conceivably — but we can’t define them yet — different capacities to ward off viruses or bacteria,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Could it be that some people have a better immune system or genetic component or environmental reason that they are less susceptible to infectious disease? “We can’t define that in 2022 medicine, but it could be,” he said.

More is known about why people with the same COVID exposure may have different levels of illness severity.

“They’re more likely to get seriously ill if they have a list of predisposing conditions — if they’re older, if they’re frail, if they have underlying illness or are obese. All of those things clearly impair the body’s response to virus,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He warns those who have never been infected, though, not to assume they have “a suit of armor.”

All should continue to follow guidance on getting vaccinated, and those vaccinated should continue to get boosted, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Clearly, the data show that if you are vaccinated and boosted, you’re protected much more securely against severe disease,” he said.

If the never-COVIDs develop a respiratory infection, they should still get tested for COVID, Dr. Schaffner said.

He said while both vaccines and previous natural infection offer protection, the duration of that protection is not yet known.

“We have to stay tuned,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a recommendation in the future to get a booster annually or something like that. We need to be open to those down the road.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, says it’s unclear why some people have been able to avoid COVID.

“The explanation is likely multifactorial and involves behaviors as well as possible idiosyncrasies with their immune systems that are genetically based,” he said. “It also may be the case that inapparent infections occurred and went undiagnosed.”

Dr. Adalja agrees, though, that this isn’t the time to get overconfident with risk-taking where COVID is concerned.

“People who have not knowingly been infected with COVID should be vaccinated, and after that, be assured that they are protected against serious disease from this virus,” he said.
 

Genetic protection?

A new study in Nature Genetics explains a potential genetic relationship. Study authors found evidence that levels of expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) – which helps regulate blood pressure, wound healing, and inflammation, but has also been shown to serve as an entry point into cells for some coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 — influence COVID-19 risk.

Manuel A. Ferreira, PhD, an executive director for analytic genetics at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that ACE2 receptors — what he calls the “gateways” for SARS-CoV-2 to enter the body — are different in people who have inherited a particular allele.

The researchers have found that that allele is associated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“It’s quite substantial -- a 40% risk reduction if you carry the allele that reduces ACE2 expression,” he said. They were not able to discern from this study, however, whether that could predict severity of disease.

The team also looked at a series of six genetic variants elsewhere in the genome and developed a risk score to see if it was possible to predict who might be more susceptible to severe COVID.

Dr. Ferreira said the score only slightly improved predictive abilities beyond factors such as age, sex, weight, and comorbidities. Further information will help hone the ability to predict the likelihood of developing severe disease on the basis of genetics, Ferreira said.

“As we identify more genetic risk factors for COVID — variants like the ACE2 variant that will affect your risk of having COVID — the more informative the risk score will be,” he said.

Several authors of the Nature Genetics article are current and/or former employees of AncestryDNA and may hold equity in AncestryDNA. Several are Regeneron employees and/or hold stock in the company. Dr. Ferreira is an employee of Regeneron and holds stock in the company. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Adalja report no relevant financial relationships.

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

If you’re among those people in the United States who never had COVID-19, how should you think about your risk?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of people in the United States are in the never-got-COVID category.

The CDC estimated that by the end of January, 43.4% in the United States had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 triggered by infection, not by vaccination — suggesting nearly 60% of people have never been infected.

Now mask mandates are lifting, and daily case and death numbers are plunging. According to the New York Times tracker, new cases are down 51% for the past 2 weeks, and deaths have fallen 30% in that period.

So as those who have so far escaped the virus venture further out into reopened environments, should they worry more or less about risk than their previously infected counterparts?

Some experts weigh in with caution against feeling invincible.
 

No “suit of armor”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that science has not been able to determine why some people have been able to be stay COVID-free when the virus was raging and exposure was ubiquitous.

He said it’s important to remember that though some people think they have never had COVID, they may have been asymptomatic or attributed mild symptoms to something else.

“People may have conceivably — but we can’t define them yet — different capacities to ward off viruses or bacteria,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Could it be that some people have a better immune system or genetic component or environmental reason that they are less susceptible to infectious disease? “We can’t define that in 2022 medicine, but it could be,” he said.

More is known about why people with the same COVID exposure may have different levels of illness severity.

“They’re more likely to get seriously ill if they have a list of predisposing conditions — if they’re older, if they’re frail, if they have underlying illness or are obese. All of those things clearly impair the body’s response to virus,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He warns those who have never been infected, though, not to assume they have “a suit of armor.”

All should continue to follow guidance on getting vaccinated, and those vaccinated should continue to get boosted, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Clearly, the data show that if you are vaccinated and boosted, you’re protected much more securely against severe disease,” he said.

If the never-COVIDs develop a respiratory infection, they should still get tested for COVID, Dr. Schaffner said.

He said while both vaccines and previous natural infection offer protection, the duration of that protection is not yet known.

“We have to stay tuned,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a recommendation in the future to get a booster annually or something like that. We need to be open to those down the road.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, says it’s unclear why some people have been able to avoid COVID.

“The explanation is likely multifactorial and involves behaviors as well as possible idiosyncrasies with their immune systems that are genetically based,” he said. “It also may be the case that inapparent infections occurred and went undiagnosed.”

Dr. Adalja agrees, though, that this isn’t the time to get overconfident with risk-taking where COVID is concerned.

“People who have not knowingly been infected with COVID should be vaccinated, and after that, be assured that they are protected against serious disease from this virus,” he said.
 

Genetic protection?

A new study in Nature Genetics explains a potential genetic relationship. Study authors found evidence that levels of expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) – which helps regulate blood pressure, wound healing, and inflammation, but has also been shown to serve as an entry point into cells for some coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 — influence COVID-19 risk.

Manuel A. Ferreira, PhD, an executive director for analytic genetics at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that ACE2 receptors — what he calls the “gateways” for SARS-CoV-2 to enter the body — are different in people who have inherited a particular allele.

The researchers have found that that allele is associated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“It’s quite substantial -- a 40% risk reduction if you carry the allele that reduces ACE2 expression,” he said. They were not able to discern from this study, however, whether that could predict severity of disease.

The team also looked at a series of six genetic variants elsewhere in the genome and developed a risk score to see if it was possible to predict who might be more susceptible to severe COVID.

Dr. Ferreira said the score only slightly improved predictive abilities beyond factors such as age, sex, weight, and comorbidities. Further information will help hone the ability to predict the likelihood of developing severe disease on the basis of genetics, Ferreira said.

“As we identify more genetic risk factors for COVID — variants like the ACE2 variant that will affect your risk of having COVID — the more informative the risk score will be,” he said.

Several authors of the Nature Genetics article are current and/or former employees of AncestryDNA and may hold equity in AncestryDNA. Several are Regeneron employees and/or hold stock in the company. Dr. Ferreira is an employee of Regeneron and holds stock in the company. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Adalja report no relevant financial relationships.

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

If you’re among those people in the United States who never had COVID-19, how should you think about your risk?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of people in the United States are in the never-got-COVID category.

The CDC estimated that by the end of January, 43.4% in the United States had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 triggered by infection, not by vaccination — suggesting nearly 60% of people have never been infected.

Now mask mandates are lifting, and daily case and death numbers are plunging. According to the New York Times tracker, new cases are down 51% for the past 2 weeks, and deaths have fallen 30% in that period.

So as those who have so far escaped the virus venture further out into reopened environments, should they worry more or less about risk than their previously infected counterparts?

Some experts weigh in with caution against feeling invincible.
 

No “suit of armor”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that science has not been able to determine why some people have been able to be stay COVID-free when the virus was raging and exposure was ubiquitous.

He said it’s important to remember that though some people think they have never had COVID, they may have been asymptomatic or attributed mild symptoms to something else.

“People may have conceivably — but we can’t define them yet — different capacities to ward off viruses or bacteria,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Could it be that some people have a better immune system or genetic component or environmental reason that they are less susceptible to infectious disease? “We can’t define that in 2022 medicine, but it could be,” he said.

More is known about why people with the same COVID exposure may have different levels of illness severity.

“They’re more likely to get seriously ill if they have a list of predisposing conditions — if they’re older, if they’re frail, if they have underlying illness or are obese. All of those things clearly impair the body’s response to virus,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He warns those who have never been infected, though, not to assume they have “a suit of armor.”

All should continue to follow guidance on getting vaccinated, and those vaccinated should continue to get boosted, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Clearly, the data show that if you are vaccinated and boosted, you’re protected much more securely against severe disease,” he said.

If the never-COVIDs develop a respiratory infection, they should still get tested for COVID, Dr. Schaffner said.

He said while both vaccines and previous natural infection offer protection, the duration of that protection is not yet known.

“We have to stay tuned,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a recommendation in the future to get a booster annually or something like that. We need to be open to those down the road.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, says it’s unclear why some people have been able to avoid COVID.

“The explanation is likely multifactorial and involves behaviors as well as possible idiosyncrasies with their immune systems that are genetically based,” he said. “It also may be the case that inapparent infections occurred and went undiagnosed.”

Dr. Adalja agrees, though, that this isn’t the time to get overconfident with risk-taking where COVID is concerned.

“People who have not knowingly been infected with COVID should be vaccinated, and after that, be assured that they are protected against serious disease from this virus,” he said.
 

Genetic protection?

A new study in Nature Genetics explains a potential genetic relationship. Study authors found evidence that levels of expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) – which helps regulate blood pressure, wound healing, and inflammation, but has also been shown to serve as an entry point into cells for some coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 — influence COVID-19 risk.

Manuel A. Ferreira, PhD, an executive director for analytic genetics at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that ACE2 receptors — what he calls the “gateways” for SARS-CoV-2 to enter the body — are different in people who have inherited a particular allele.

The researchers have found that that allele is associated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“It’s quite substantial -- a 40% risk reduction if you carry the allele that reduces ACE2 expression,” he said. They were not able to discern from this study, however, whether that could predict severity of disease.

The team also looked at a series of six genetic variants elsewhere in the genome and developed a risk score to see if it was possible to predict who might be more susceptible to severe COVID.

Dr. Ferreira said the score only slightly improved predictive abilities beyond factors such as age, sex, weight, and comorbidities. Further information will help hone the ability to predict the likelihood of developing severe disease on the basis of genetics, Ferreira said.

“As we identify more genetic risk factors for COVID — variants like the ACE2 variant that will affect your risk of having COVID — the more informative the risk score will be,” he said.

Several authors of the Nature Genetics article are current and/or former employees of AncestryDNA and may hold equity in AncestryDNA. Several are Regeneron employees and/or hold stock in the company. Dr. Ferreira is an employee of Regeneron and holds stock in the company. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Adalja report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

All 15 members of Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center’s external advisory board (EAB) resigned on February 18 and withdrew their endorsement for renewal of the center’s National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center support grant.

The move was prompted by the abrupt firing of center director Boris Pasche, MD, PhD, on February 10, one day after NCI renewed a multimillion dollar grant.

The Cancer Letter broke the story and published the resignation letter from the EAB. It was signed by board chair Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, CEO and director of the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, on behalf of the board.

The mass resignation of an EAB, a panel of outside experts that help shepherd cancer centers through the NCI grant process, is “highly unusual,” according to The Cancer Letter. It also raises concerns about the “immediate future” of Wake Forest’s cancer center, the publication added.

Numerous people involved with the situation did not respond or declined to comment when this news organization requested additional information and updates, including questions about the reason for Dr. Pasche’s termination; whether or not withdrawal of the endorsement puts Wake’s NCI designation in jeopardy; and if the EAB is being reconstituted.

A written statement from Wake Forest simply said that “the situation involving Dr. Pasche is an administrative decision. Various administrative changes occur regularly in organizations across the country. Dr. Pasche remains employed by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. We are very grateful to Dr. Pasche for his years of service and many contributions to the mission and vision of our NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem.”

Wake’s cancer center is in the process of combining with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Center, which is not NCI-designated, following Atrium Health system’s recent acquisition of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

The NCI renewal notice, dated February 9, states that Dr. Pasche “and his leadership team have built a robust, transdisciplinary center that includes 140 scientists.”

Dr. Pasche was fired a day later.

The EAB resignation letter states that during Wake Forest’s recent NCI review process, “leadership gave their glowing endorsement of Dr. Pasche...This endorsement included unequivocal statements of support for Dr. Pasche’s oversight of the combined Atrium-Wake Forest cancer program.”

“What followed was his rapid dismissal after the...notice of award was issued, following a period during which the approach to integration was apparently being revisited,” Dr. Bepler said on behalf of the board.

“It is with sadness and dismay that we witnessed the change in approach by the institutional leadership towards” the merger, he wrote.

The Cancer Letter quotes an unnamed board member as saying, “EABs for cancer centers can only provide value to the center when there is openness and transparency in the process. In the absence of such, I believe the members felt that there was no further utility in providing guidance to the organization.”

The resignation letter was sent to the interim director of Wake’s cancer center, radiation oncologist William Blackstock, Jr, MD, and also copied to Atrium-Wake and NCI leadership.

The resignation letter endorsed Dr. Blackstock’s qualifications to run the center, and noted that as the board is reconstituted, “some of us would be honored to discuss participation...if there is unequivocal evidence from the health system’s senior management for support of a single, academically driven, comprehensive, and integrated cancer center.”

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

All 15 members of Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center’s external advisory board (EAB) resigned on February 18 and withdrew their endorsement for renewal of the center’s National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center support grant.

The move was prompted by the abrupt firing of center director Boris Pasche, MD, PhD, on February 10, one day after NCI renewed a multimillion dollar grant.

The Cancer Letter broke the story and published the resignation letter from the EAB. It was signed by board chair Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, CEO and director of the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, on behalf of the board.

The mass resignation of an EAB, a panel of outside experts that help shepherd cancer centers through the NCI grant process, is “highly unusual,” according to The Cancer Letter. It also raises concerns about the “immediate future” of Wake Forest’s cancer center, the publication added.

Numerous people involved with the situation did not respond or declined to comment when this news organization requested additional information and updates, including questions about the reason for Dr. Pasche’s termination; whether or not withdrawal of the endorsement puts Wake’s NCI designation in jeopardy; and if the EAB is being reconstituted.

A written statement from Wake Forest simply said that “the situation involving Dr. Pasche is an administrative decision. Various administrative changes occur regularly in organizations across the country. Dr. Pasche remains employed by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. We are very grateful to Dr. Pasche for his years of service and many contributions to the mission and vision of our NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem.”

Wake’s cancer center is in the process of combining with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Center, which is not NCI-designated, following Atrium Health system’s recent acquisition of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

The NCI renewal notice, dated February 9, states that Dr. Pasche “and his leadership team have built a robust, transdisciplinary center that includes 140 scientists.”

Dr. Pasche was fired a day later.

The EAB resignation letter states that during Wake Forest’s recent NCI review process, “leadership gave their glowing endorsement of Dr. Pasche...This endorsement included unequivocal statements of support for Dr. Pasche’s oversight of the combined Atrium-Wake Forest cancer program.”

“What followed was his rapid dismissal after the...notice of award was issued, following a period during which the approach to integration was apparently being revisited,” Dr. Bepler said on behalf of the board.

“It is with sadness and dismay that we witnessed the change in approach by the institutional leadership towards” the merger, he wrote.

The Cancer Letter quotes an unnamed board member as saying, “EABs for cancer centers can only provide value to the center when there is openness and transparency in the process. In the absence of such, I believe the members felt that there was no further utility in providing guidance to the organization.”

The resignation letter was sent to the interim director of Wake’s cancer center, radiation oncologist William Blackstock, Jr, MD, and also copied to Atrium-Wake and NCI leadership.

The resignation letter endorsed Dr. Blackstock’s qualifications to run the center, and noted that as the board is reconstituted, “some of us would be honored to discuss participation...if there is unequivocal evidence from the health system’s senior management for support of a single, academically driven, comprehensive, and integrated cancer center.”

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

All 15 members of Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center’s external advisory board (EAB) resigned on February 18 and withdrew their endorsement for renewal of the center’s National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center support grant.

The move was prompted by the abrupt firing of center director Boris Pasche, MD, PhD, on February 10, one day after NCI renewed a multimillion dollar grant.

The Cancer Letter broke the story and published the resignation letter from the EAB. It was signed by board chair Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, CEO and director of the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, on behalf of the board.

The mass resignation of an EAB, a panel of outside experts that help shepherd cancer centers through the NCI grant process, is “highly unusual,” according to The Cancer Letter. It also raises concerns about the “immediate future” of Wake Forest’s cancer center, the publication added.

Numerous people involved with the situation did not respond or declined to comment when this news organization requested additional information and updates, including questions about the reason for Dr. Pasche’s termination; whether or not withdrawal of the endorsement puts Wake’s NCI designation in jeopardy; and if the EAB is being reconstituted.

A written statement from Wake Forest simply said that “the situation involving Dr. Pasche is an administrative decision. Various administrative changes occur regularly in organizations across the country. Dr. Pasche remains employed by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. We are very grateful to Dr. Pasche for his years of service and many contributions to the mission and vision of our NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem.”

Wake’s cancer center is in the process of combining with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Center, which is not NCI-designated, following Atrium Health system’s recent acquisition of the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

The NCI renewal notice, dated February 9, states that Dr. Pasche “and his leadership team have built a robust, transdisciplinary center that includes 140 scientists.”

Dr. Pasche was fired a day later.

The EAB resignation letter states that during Wake Forest’s recent NCI review process, “leadership gave their glowing endorsement of Dr. Pasche...This endorsement included unequivocal statements of support for Dr. Pasche’s oversight of the combined Atrium-Wake Forest cancer program.”

“What followed was his rapid dismissal after the...notice of award was issued, following a period during which the approach to integration was apparently being revisited,” Dr. Bepler said on behalf of the board.

“It is with sadness and dismay that we witnessed the change in approach by the institutional leadership towards” the merger, he wrote.

The Cancer Letter quotes an unnamed board member as saying, “EABs for cancer centers can only provide value to the center when there is openness and transparency in the process. In the absence of such, I believe the members felt that there was no further utility in providing guidance to the organization.”

The resignation letter was sent to the interim director of Wake’s cancer center, radiation oncologist William Blackstock, Jr, MD, and also copied to Atrium-Wake and NCI leadership.

The resignation letter endorsed Dr. Blackstock’s qualifications to run the center, and noted that as the board is reconstituted, “some of us would be honored to discuss participation...if there is unequivocal evidence from the health system’s senior management for support of a single, academically driven, comprehensive, and integrated cancer center.”

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