The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

“Living with diabetes is not smooth sailing…From the onset of the disease in a child or adolescent through all the days that follow, there is nothing ordinary about it,” according to Aide aux Jeunes Diabétiques (AJD), a French association providing support for children and adolescents with diabetes. What is the psychological impact of the disease on patients and their loved ones? When we look at the life of a person with diabetes, are there key stages that call for more focused attention?

Nadine Hoffmeister, a psychologist at AJD, offers support to patients with diabetes and their parents as they navigate and deal with in-patient treatment for the disease. She recently spoke with this news organization.

Q: Are psychological issues more prevalent in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) than in the general population?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Having a chronic disease is not something that should be viewed as automatically making the person more susceptible to psychological issues. When we think about kids with T1D, it’s important to keep in mind that the risk for depression and the risk for eating disorders are, in general, higher in adolescence.

Of course, it can’t be denied that having diabetes can make one more vulnerable to experiencing mental distress. Clearly, the risk for eating disorders is there, given the constant focus on managing one’s diet. And there’s a greater risk for depression, because life with diabetes can really be trying. That said, how much impact the disease has depends in large part on the environment, the monitoring, and the collaboration of everyone involved.
 

Q: Are there key stages in the life of patients with T1D that call for targeted psychological support? 

Dr. Hoffmeister: The thing about T1D is that it can affect anyone at any age – a small child, a teenager, a young adult. So, in that sense, all ‘firsts’ are key stages. They start, of course, with the first ‘first’: diagnosis. For children diagnosed at an early age, there’s the first day of nursery school or kindergarten, the first piece of birthday cake. Then we get to kids starting middle school and high school, places where they’re now left to their own devices. This is when, for the first time, they’ll have an opportunity to take a trip without their parents and siblings, to go to a party.

And then, there’s the first time using a particular treatment. For example, switching from injections to a pump requires not only an adjustment in terms of physically operating a new device, but a reorientation in terms of mentally settling into a new routine, a new way of administering medication, and so on. They have to learn how to get along with this machine that’s attached to them all the time. They have to view it as being a part of them, view it as a partner, a teammate, a friend. It’s not that easy.

Later on, one of the major stages is, of course, adolescence. Critical developments in the separation–individuation process are taking place. They start to feel the need to break free, to become autonomous, as they seek to fully come to terms with their disease.

Parents usually worry about this stage, adolescence. They’re scared that their child won’t be as vigilant, that they’ll be scatterbrained or careless when it comes to staying on top of all those things that need to be done to keep T1D under control. Most of the time, this stage goes better than they thought. Still, the fact remains that it’s difficult to find a happy medium between adolescence and diabetes. Indeed, there’s a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, we have adolescence which, by definition, is a time of spontaneity, independence, of trying new things. On the other hand, we have diabetes and its limits and constraints, its care and treatment, day in and day out. We have to pay close attention to how the child navigates and makes their way through this stage of their life.

During adolescence, there’s also a heightened awareness and concern about how others look at you, see you – everywhere, not only in classrooms and hallways. If the way someone looks at them seems aggressive or intrusive, the child may start to feel scared. The risk then becomes that they’ll start feeling awkward or ashamed or embarrassed. We have to keep this in mind and help lead the child away from those feelings. Otherwise, they can end up with low self-esteem, they can start to withdraw.

It can sometimes get to the point where they choose to neglect their treatment so as to conform to the way others see them. Adults can easily lose sight of these kinds of things. So, it’s imperative that we talk to the child. If they’re having trouble following their treatment plan, maybe there’s something going on at school. So, let’s ask them: “How do you like your classes and teachers?” “How are you doing with your injections? Are you finding that they’re getting easier and easier to do?” And always keeping in mind the real possibility that the child may be feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed.
 

Q: Is enough being done to pick up on and address these children’s needs?

Dr. Hoffmeister: I think that these efforts are becoming more and more widespread. Still, there are disparities. When it comes to patients with chronic diseases, it’s not always easy to implement mental health care into the treatment plan. In some cases, there might not be a hospital nearby. And as we know, there are no spots available in medical and psychiatric centers. Of course, outside of hospital settings, we’re seeing the unfortunate situation of fewer and fewer middle schools and high schools having nurses on site.

And then, what options there are for getting support vary greatly from hospital to hospital. Some don’t have psychologists. Others have full schedules and not enough staff. That said, more and more teams are trying to set up regular appointments right from the time of diagnosis. This is a really good approach to take, even though the circumstances may not be ideal. After all, the person has just been told that they have diabetes; they’re not really in the best state of mind to have any kind of discussion.
 

Q: And so, it makes sense that AJD would offer the kind of mental health support that you’re now providing there.

Dr. Hoffmeister: Exactly. My position was created 4 years ago. I’m not at the hospital. I’m an external. The goal is to be able to offer this psychological support to everyone. I do consultations over the phone so that no matter where a person is in France, they’ll have access to this support. There’s great demand, and the requests are only increasing. I think this has to do with the fact that people are being diagnosed younger and younger. It’s a very complicated situation for the parents. No matter how young their child is, they want to get that support underway as soon as possible.

Q: You speak about the patients getting support. But doesn’t some kind of help have to be given to their parents and loved ones as well?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Yes. I’d say that 60% to 70% of the work I do at AJD is for parents. I also have some older adolescents and some younger kids whom I call to keep up with. But children aren’t very interested in discussing plans over the phone. For parents, the thing about diabetes is that they find themselves in these situations where their child is in the hospital for, say, a week, then is discharged, and all of a sudden, they find themselves at home as the ones in charge of their child’s treatment.

When it’s a little kid, the parents are the ones who are taking care of all the steps, the injections, the pumps. They’re dealing with the distress of a child going through episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia. They’re experiencing varying degrees of anxiety in carrying out all of these responsibilities and, at the same time, the bond they have with their child is becoming stronger and stronger. So, there’s that anxiety. In this situation, parents may also feel a need for control. And they’re also feeling exhausted; the mental load of dealing with diabetes is very, very intense. To work through all this, many parents reach out for psychological support.

Then later on, when the child has gotten a little older, the parents find it difficult to get to the point of being able to just let go. But once the parents get to know their child better, get to know how their child experiences diabetes, they’ll get to that point. What they come to learn is that the child can take care of things, the child can feel what’s going on in their body, the child can be trusted.
 

Q: How can we help and support children with diabetes?

Dr. Hoffmeister: One of the most important things is to teach the child to come to terms with the disease and how it affects their body. In other words, the idea here is to adapt diabetes to one’s life, not the other way around. The goal is to not let diabetes take over.

When faced with standardized medical protocols, during a session with a psychologist, the child can talk about their life, give an idea of what a day in their life looks like. For example, the school cafeteria is a place where children get the opportunity to socialize and interact with their peers. We want to have that lunch period be as normal as possible for the child with diabetes. In some schools, lunchtime becomes a challenge. So, not seeing any other solution, mom stops working so the child can come home to eat. These are the kinds of situations where efforts to make the child feel included have failed. They’re tough to deal with, all around. And so this is why we do all we can to keep things as normal as possible for these children.
 

Q: What would you say is the one initiative out there that’s giving young patients with T1D the most help and support?

Dr. Hoffmeister: AJD offers stays at Care Management and Rehabilitation (SSR) sites. For kids and teenagers with diabetes, these places are like summer camps where every aspect of treatment is taken care of.

There’s a medical team monitoring their disease and a team of counselors always on hand. It’s a time when children may very well bring up things that are on their mind. All in all, the children have a safe and welcoming environment where treatment is provided and they can feel free to open up and talk.

If a problem crops up, I’m always on call to jump online. And throughout the stay, the medical team is keeping in touch to discuss the child’s care.

AJD is also an interdisciplinary association. We regularly organize practice exchange groups that bring together health care professionals and families from all over France. In this way, we’re able to collaborate and come up with resources, such as information packets and kits – for the newly diagnosed, for those starting intensive insulin therapy, and so on. These resources take into account medical protocols related to diabetes. They’re also designed with family life in mind. And having this set of resources works toward standardizing treatments.

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

“Living with diabetes is not smooth sailing…From the onset of the disease in a child or adolescent through all the days that follow, there is nothing ordinary about it,” according to Aide aux Jeunes Diabétiques (AJD), a French association providing support for children and adolescents with diabetes. What is the psychological impact of the disease on patients and their loved ones? When we look at the life of a person with diabetes, are there key stages that call for more focused attention?

Nadine Hoffmeister, a psychologist at AJD, offers support to patients with diabetes and their parents as they navigate and deal with in-patient treatment for the disease. She recently spoke with this news organization.

Q: Are psychological issues more prevalent in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) than in the general population?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Having a chronic disease is not something that should be viewed as automatically making the person more susceptible to psychological issues. When we think about kids with T1D, it’s important to keep in mind that the risk for depression and the risk for eating disorders are, in general, higher in adolescence.

Of course, it can’t be denied that having diabetes can make one more vulnerable to experiencing mental distress. Clearly, the risk for eating disorders is there, given the constant focus on managing one’s diet. And there’s a greater risk for depression, because life with diabetes can really be trying. That said, how much impact the disease has depends in large part on the environment, the monitoring, and the collaboration of everyone involved.
 

Q: Are there key stages in the life of patients with T1D that call for targeted psychological support? 

Dr. Hoffmeister: The thing about T1D is that it can affect anyone at any age – a small child, a teenager, a young adult. So, in that sense, all ‘firsts’ are key stages. They start, of course, with the first ‘first’: diagnosis. For children diagnosed at an early age, there’s the first day of nursery school or kindergarten, the first piece of birthday cake. Then we get to kids starting middle school and high school, places where they’re now left to their own devices. This is when, for the first time, they’ll have an opportunity to take a trip without their parents and siblings, to go to a party.

And then, there’s the first time using a particular treatment. For example, switching from injections to a pump requires not only an adjustment in terms of physically operating a new device, but a reorientation in terms of mentally settling into a new routine, a new way of administering medication, and so on. They have to learn how to get along with this machine that’s attached to them all the time. They have to view it as being a part of them, view it as a partner, a teammate, a friend. It’s not that easy.

Later on, one of the major stages is, of course, adolescence. Critical developments in the separation–individuation process are taking place. They start to feel the need to break free, to become autonomous, as they seek to fully come to terms with their disease.

Parents usually worry about this stage, adolescence. They’re scared that their child won’t be as vigilant, that they’ll be scatterbrained or careless when it comes to staying on top of all those things that need to be done to keep T1D under control. Most of the time, this stage goes better than they thought. Still, the fact remains that it’s difficult to find a happy medium between adolescence and diabetes. Indeed, there’s a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, we have adolescence which, by definition, is a time of spontaneity, independence, of trying new things. On the other hand, we have diabetes and its limits and constraints, its care and treatment, day in and day out. We have to pay close attention to how the child navigates and makes their way through this stage of their life.

During adolescence, there’s also a heightened awareness and concern about how others look at you, see you – everywhere, not only in classrooms and hallways. If the way someone looks at them seems aggressive or intrusive, the child may start to feel scared. The risk then becomes that they’ll start feeling awkward or ashamed or embarrassed. We have to keep this in mind and help lead the child away from those feelings. Otherwise, they can end up with low self-esteem, they can start to withdraw.

It can sometimes get to the point where they choose to neglect their treatment so as to conform to the way others see them. Adults can easily lose sight of these kinds of things. So, it’s imperative that we talk to the child. If they’re having trouble following their treatment plan, maybe there’s something going on at school. So, let’s ask them: “How do you like your classes and teachers?” “How are you doing with your injections? Are you finding that they’re getting easier and easier to do?” And always keeping in mind the real possibility that the child may be feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed.
 

Q: Is enough being done to pick up on and address these children’s needs?

Dr. Hoffmeister: I think that these efforts are becoming more and more widespread. Still, there are disparities. When it comes to patients with chronic diseases, it’s not always easy to implement mental health care into the treatment plan. In some cases, there might not be a hospital nearby. And as we know, there are no spots available in medical and psychiatric centers. Of course, outside of hospital settings, we’re seeing the unfortunate situation of fewer and fewer middle schools and high schools having nurses on site.

And then, what options there are for getting support vary greatly from hospital to hospital. Some don’t have psychologists. Others have full schedules and not enough staff. That said, more and more teams are trying to set up regular appointments right from the time of diagnosis. This is a really good approach to take, even though the circumstances may not be ideal. After all, the person has just been told that they have diabetes; they’re not really in the best state of mind to have any kind of discussion.
 

Q: And so, it makes sense that AJD would offer the kind of mental health support that you’re now providing there.

Dr. Hoffmeister: Exactly. My position was created 4 years ago. I’m not at the hospital. I’m an external. The goal is to be able to offer this psychological support to everyone. I do consultations over the phone so that no matter where a person is in France, they’ll have access to this support. There’s great demand, and the requests are only increasing. I think this has to do with the fact that people are being diagnosed younger and younger. It’s a very complicated situation for the parents. No matter how young their child is, they want to get that support underway as soon as possible.

Q: You speak about the patients getting support. But doesn’t some kind of help have to be given to their parents and loved ones as well?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Yes. I’d say that 60% to 70% of the work I do at AJD is for parents. I also have some older adolescents and some younger kids whom I call to keep up with. But children aren’t very interested in discussing plans over the phone. For parents, the thing about diabetes is that they find themselves in these situations where their child is in the hospital for, say, a week, then is discharged, and all of a sudden, they find themselves at home as the ones in charge of their child’s treatment.

When it’s a little kid, the parents are the ones who are taking care of all the steps, the injections, the pumps. They’re dealing with the distress of a child going through episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia. They’re experiencing varying degrees of anxiety in carrying out all of these responsibilities and, at the same time, the bond they have with their child is becoming stronger and stronger. So, there’s that anxiety. In this situation, parents may also feel a need for control. And they’re also feeling exhausted; the mental load of dealing with diabetes is very, very intense. To work through all this, many parents reach out for psychological support.

Then later on, when the child has gotten a little older, the parents find it difficult to get to the point of being able to just let go. But once the parents get to know their child better, get to know how their child experiences diabetes, they’ll get to that point. What they come to learn is that the child can take care of things, the child can feel what’s going on in their body, the child can be trusted.
 

Q: How can we help and support children with diabetes?

Dr. Hoffmeister: One of the most important things is to teach the child to come to terms with the disease and how it affects their body. In other words, the idea here is to adapt diabetes to one’s life, not the other way around. The goal is to not let diabetes take over.

When faced with standardized medical protocols, during a session with a psychologist, the child can talk about their life, give an idea of what a day in their life looks like. For example, the school cafeteria is a place where children get the opportunity to socialize and interact with their peers. We want to have that lunch period be as normal as possible for the child with diabetes. In some schools, lunchtime becomes a challenge. So, not seeing any other solution, mom stops working so the child can come home to eat. These are the kinds of situations where efforts to make the child feel included have failed. They’re tough to deal with, all around. And so this is why we do all we can to keep things as normal as possible for these children.
 

Q: What would you say is the one initiative out there that’s giving young patients with T1D the most help and support?

Dr. Hoffmeister: AJD offers stays at Care Management and Rehabilitation (SSR) sites. For kids and teenagers with diabetes, these places are like summer camps where every aspect of treatment is taken care of.

There’s a medical team monitoring their disease and a team of counselors always on hand. It’s a time when children may very well bring up things that are on their mind. All in all, the children have a safe and welcoming environment where treatment is provided and they can feel free to open up and talk.

If a problem crops up, I’m always on call to jump online. And throughout the stay, the medical team is keeping in touch to discuss the child’s care.

AJD is also an interdisciplinary association. We regularly organize practice exchange groups that bring together health care professionals and families from all over France. In this way, we’re able to collaborate and come up with resources, such as information packets and kits – for the newly diagnosed, for those starting intensive insulin therapy, and so on. These resources take into account medical protocols related to diabetes. They’re also designed with family life in mind. And having this set of resources works toward standardizing treatments.

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

“Living with diabetes is not smooth sailing…From the onset of the disease in a child or adolescent through all the days that follow, there is nothing ordinary about it,” according to Aide aux Jeunes Diabétiques (AJD), a French association providing support for children and adolescents with diabetes. What is the psychological impact of the disease on patients and their loved ones? When we look at the life of a person with diabetes, are there key stages that call for more focused attention?

Nadine Hoffmeister, a psychologist at AJD, offers support to patients with diabetes and their parents as they navigate and deal with in-patient treatment for the disease. She recently spoke with this news organization.

Q: Are psychological issues more prevalent in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) than in the general population?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Having a chronic disease is not something that should be viewed as automatically making the person more susceptible to psychological issues. When we think about kids with T1D, it’s important to keep in mind that the risk for depression and the risk for eating disorders are, in general, higher in adolescence.

Of course, it can’t be denied that having diabetes can make one more vulnerable to experiencing mental distress. Clearly, the risk for eating disorders is there, given the constant focus on managing one’s diet. And there’s a greater risk for depression, because life with diabetes can really be trying. That said, how much impact the disease has depends in large part on the environment, the monitoring, and the collaboration of everyone involved.
 

Q: Are there key stages in the life of patients with T1D that call for targeted psychological support? 

Dr. Hoffmeister: The thing about T1D is that it can affect anyone at any age – a small child, a teenager, a young adult. So, in that sense, all ‘firsts’ are key stages. They start, of course, with the first ‘first’: diagnosis. For children diagnosed at an early age, there’s the first day of nursery school or kindergarten, the first piece of birthday cake. Then we get to kids starting middle school and high school, places where they’re now left to their own devices. This is when, for the first time, they’ll have an opportunity to take a trip without their parents and siblings, to go to a party.

And then, there’s the first time using a particular treatment. For example, switching from injections to a pump requires not only an adjustment in terms of physically operating a new device, but a reorientation in terms of mentally settling into a new routine, a new way of administering medication, and so on. They have to learn how to get along with this machine that’s attached to them all the time. They have to view it as being a part of them, view it as a partner, a teammate, a friend. It’s not that easy.

Later on, one of the major stages is, of course, adolescence. Critical developments in the separation–individuation process are taking place. They start to feel the need to break free, to become autonomous, as they seek to fully come to terms with their disease.

Parents usually worry about this stage, adolescence. They’re scared that their child won’t be as vigilant, that they’ll be scatterbrained or careless when it comes to staying on top of all those things that need to be done to keep T1D under control. Most of the time, this stage goes better than they thought. Still, the fact remains that it’s difficult to find a happy medium between adolescence and diabetes. Indeed, there’s a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, we have adolescence which, by definition, is a time of spontaneity, independence, of trying new things. On the other hand, we have diabetes and its limits and constraints, its care and treatment, day in and day out. We have to pay close attention to how the child navigates and makes their way through this stage of their life.

During adolescence, there’s also a heightened awareness and concern about how others look at you, see you – everywhere, not only in classrooms and hallways. If the way someone looks at them seems aggressive or intrusive, the child may start to feel scared. The risk then becomes that they’ll start feeling awkward or ashamed or embarrassed. We have to keep this in mind and help lead the child away from those feelings. Otherwise, they can end up with low self-esteem, they can start to withdraw.

It can sometimes get to the point where they choose to neglect their treatment so as to conform to the way others see them. Adults can easily lose sight of these kinds of things. So, it’s imperative that we talk to the child. If they’re having trouble following their treatment plan, maybe there’s something going on at school. So, let’s ask them: “How do you like your classes and teachers?” “How are you doing with your injections? Are you finding that they’re getting easier and easier to do?” And always keeping in mind the real possibility that the child may be feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed.
 

Q: Is enough being done to pick up on and address these children’s needs?

Dr. Hoffmeister: I think that these efforts are becoming more and more widespread. Still, there are disparities. When it comes to patients with chronic diseases, it’s not always easy to implement mental health care into the treatment plan. In some cases, there might not be a hospital nearby. And as we know, there are no spots available in medical and psychiatric centers. Of course, outside of hospital settings, we’re seeing the unfortunate situation of fewer and fewer middle schools and high schools having nurses on site.

And then, what options there are for getting support vary greatly from hospital to hospital. Some don’t have psychologists. Others have full schedules and not enough staff. That said, more and more teams are trying to set up regular appointments right from the time of diagnosis. This is a really good approach to take, even though the circumstances may not be ideal. After all, the person has just been told that they have diabetes; they’re not really in the best state of mind to have any kind of discussion.
 

Q: And so, it makes sense that AJD would offer the kind of mental health support that you’re now providing there.

Dr. Hoffmeister: Exactly. My position was created 4 years ago. I’m not at the hospital. I’m an external. The goal is to be able to offer this psychological support to everyone. I do consultations over the phone so that no matter where a person is in France, they’ll have access to this support. There’s great demand, and the requests are only increasing. I think this has to do with the fact that people are being diagnosed younger and younger. It’s a very complicated situation for the parents. No matter how young their child is, they want to get that support underway as soon as possible.

Q: You speak about the patients getting support. But doesn’t some kind of help have to be given to their parents and loved ones as well?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Yes. I’d say that 60% to 70% of the work I do at AJD is for parents. I also have some older adolescents and some younger kids whom I call to keep up with. But children aren’t very interested in discussing plans over the phone. For parents, the thing about diabetes is that they find themselves in these situations where their child is in the hospital for, say, a week, then is discharged, and all of a sudden, they find themselves at home as the ones in charge of their child’s treatment.

When it’s a little kid, the parents are the ones who are taking care of all the steps, the injections, the pumps. They’re dealing with the distress of a child going through episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia. They’re experiencing varying degrees of anxiety in carrying out all of these responsibilities and, at the same time, the bond they have with their child is becoming stronger and stronger. So, there’s that anxiety. In this situation, parents may also feel a need for control. And they’re also feeling exhausted; the mental load of dealing with diabetes is very, very intense. To work through all this, many parents reach out for psychological support.

Then later on, when the child has gotten a little older, the parents find it difficult to get to the point of being able to just let go. But once the parents get to know their child better, get to know how their child experiences diabetes, they’ll get to that point. What they come to learn is that the child can take care of things, the child can feel what’s going on in their body, the child can be trusted.
 

Q: How can we help and support children with diabetes?

Dr. Hoffmeister: One of the most important things is to teach the child to come to terms with the disease and how it affects their body. In other words, the idea here is to adapt diabetes to one’s life, not the other way around. The goal is to not let diabetes take over.

When faced with standardized medical protocols, during a session with a psychologist, the child can talk about their life, give an idea of what a day in their life looks like. For example, the school cafeteria is a place where children get the opportunity to socialize and interact with their peers. We want to have that lunch period be as normal as possible for the child with diabetes. In some schools, lunchtime becomes a challenge. So, not seeing any other solution, mom stops working so the child can come home to eat. These are the kinds of situations where efforts to make the child feel included have failed. They’re tough to deal with, all around. And so this is why we do all we can to keep things as normal as possible for these children.
 

Q: What would you say is the one initiative out there that’s giving young patients with T1D the most help and support?

Dr. Hoffmeister: AJD offers stays at Care Management and Rehabilitation (SSR) sites. For kids and teenagers with diabetes, these places are like summer camps where every aspect of treatment is taken care of.

There’s a medical team monitoring their disease and a team of counselors always on hand. It’s a time when children may very well bring up things that are on their mind. All in all, the children have a safe and welcoming environment where treatment is provided and they can feel free to open up and talk.

If a problem crops up, I’m always on call to jump online. And throughout the stay, the medical team is keeping in touch to discuss the child’s care.

AJD is also an interdisciplinary association. We regularly organize practice exchange groups that bring together health care professionals and families from all over France. In this way, we’re able to collaborate and come up with resources, such as information packets and kits – for the newly diagnosed, for those starting intensive insulin therapy, and so on. These resources take into account medical protocols related to diabetes. They’re also designed with family life in mind. And having this set of resources works toward standardizing treatments.

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

Children who survive an episode of acute respiratory failure that requires invasive mechanical ventilation may be at risk for slightly lower long-term neurocognitive function, new research suggests.

Investigators found lower IQs in children without previous neurocognitive problems who survived pediatric intensive care unit admission for acute respiratory failure, compared with their biological siblings.

Although this magnitude of difference was small on average, more than twice as many patients as siblings had an IQ of ≤85, and children hospitalized at the youngest ages did worse than their siblings.

“Children surviving acute respiratory failure may benefit from routine evaluation of neurocognitive function after hospital discharge and may require serial evaluation to identify deficits that emerge over the course of child’s continued development to facilitate early intervention to prevent disability and optimize school performance,” study investigator R. Scott Watson, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 1 in JAMA.
 

Unknown long-term effects

“Approximately 23,700 U.S. children undergo invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure annually, with unknown long-term effects on neurocognitive function,” the authors write.

“With improvements in pediatric critical care over the past several decades, critical illness–associated mortality has improved dramatically [but] as survivorship has increased, we are starting to learn that many patients and their families suffer from long-term morbidity associated with the illness and its treatment,” said Dr. Watson, who is the associate division chief, pediatric critical care medicine, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development.

Animal studies “have found that some sedative medications commonly used to keep children safe during mechanical ventilation may have detrimental neurologic effects, particularly in the developing brain,” Dr. Watson added.

To gain a better understanding of this potential association, the researchers turned to a subset of participants in the previously conducted Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) trial of pediatric patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.

For the current study (RESTORE-Cognition), multiple domains of neurocognitive function were assessed 3-8 years after hospital discharge in trial patients who did not have a history of neurocognitive dysfunction, as well as matched, healthy siblings.

To be included in the study, the children had to be ≤8 years old at trial enrollment, have a Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) score of 1 (normal) prior to PICU admission, and have no worse than moderate neurocognitive dysfunction at PICU discharge.

Siblings of enrolled patients were required to be between 4 and 16 years old at the time of neurocognitive testing, have a PCPC score of 1, have the same biological parents as the patient, and live with the patient.

The primary outcome was IQ, estimated by the age-appropriate Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Secondary outcomes included attention, processing speed, learning and memory, visuospatial skills, motor skills, language, and executive function. Enough time was allowed after hospitalization “for transient deficits to resolve and longer-lasting neurocognitive sequelae to manifest.”
 

‘Uncertain’ clinical importance

Of the 121 sibling pairs (67% non-Hispanic White, 47% from families in which one or both parents worked full-time), 116 were included in the primary outcome analysis, and 66-19 were included in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Patients had been in the PICU at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 1.0 (0.2-3.2) years and had received a median of 5.5 (3.1-7.7) days of invasive mechanical ventilation.

The median age at testing for patients and matched siblings was 6.6 (5.4-9.1) and 8.4 (7.0-10.2) years, respectively. Interviews with parents and testing of patients were conducted a median (IQR) of 3.8 (3.2-5.2) and 5.2 (4.3-6.1) years, respectively, after hospitalization.

The most common etiologies of respiratory failure were bronchiolitis and asthma and pneumonia (44% and 37%, respectively). Beyond respiratory failure, most patients (72%) also had experienced multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

Patients had a lower mean estimated IQ, compared with the matched siblings (101.5 vs. 104.3; mean difference, –2.8 [95% confidence interval, –5.4 to –0.2]), and more patients than siblings had an estimated IQ of ≤5 but not of ≤70.

Patients also had significantly lower scores on nonverbal memory, visuospatial skills, and fine motor control (mean differences, –0.9 [–1.6 to –0.3]; –0.9 [–1.8 to –.1]; and –-3.1 [–4.9 to –1.4], respectively), compared with matched siblings. They also had significantly higher scores on processing speed (mean difference, 4.4 [0.2-8.5]). There were no significant differences in the other secondary outcomes.

Differences in scores between patients and siblings varied significantly by age at hospitalization in several tests – for example, Block Design scores in patients were lower than those of siblings for patients hospitalized at <1 year old, versus those hospitalized between ages 4 and 8 years.

“When adjusting for patient age at PICU admission, patient age at testing, sibling age at testing, and duration between hospital discharge and testing, the difference in estimated IQ between patients and siblings remained statistically significantly different,” the authors note.

The investigators point out several limitations, including the fact that “little is known about sibling outcomes after critical illness, nor about whether parenting of siblings or child development differs based on birth order or on relationship between patient critical illness and the birth of siblings. ... If siblings also incur negative effects related to the critical illness, differences between critically ill children and the control siblings would be blunted.”

Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the patients and the matched controls, ultimately, the magnitude of the difference was “small and of uncertain clinical importance,” the authors conclude.
 

Filling a research gap

Commenting on the findings, Alexandre T. Rotta, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of the division of pediatric critical care medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said the study “addresses an important yet vastly understudied gap: long-term neurocognitive morbidity in children exposed to critical care.”

Dr. Rotta, who is also a coauthor of an accompanying editorial, noted that the fact that the “vast majority of children with an IQ significantly lower than their siblings were under the age of 4 years suggests that the developing immature brain may be particularly susceptible to the effects of critical illness and therapies required to treat it.”

The study “underscores the need to include assessments of long-term morbidity as part of any future trial evaluating interventions in pediatric critical care,” he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for RESTORE-Cognition and by grants for the RESTORE trial from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Watson and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rotta has received personal fees from Vapotherm for lecturing and development of educational materials and from Breas US for participation in a scientific advisory board, as well as royalties from Elsevier for editorial work outside the submitted work. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who survive an episode of acute respiratory failure that requires invasive mechanical ventilation may be at risk for slightly lower long-term neurocognitive function, new research suggests.

Investigators found lower IQs in children without previous neurocognitive problems who survived pediatric intensive care unit admission for acute respiratory failure, compared with their biological siblings.

Although this magnitude of difference was small on average, more than twice as many patients as siblings had an IQ of ≤85, and children hospitalized at the youngest ages did worse than their siblings.

“Children surviving acute respiratory failure may benefit from routine evaluation of neurocognitive function after hospital discharge and may require serial evaluation to identify deficits that emerge over the course of child’s continued development to facilitate early intervention to prevent disability and optimize school performance,” study investigator R. Scott Watson, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 1 in JAMA.
 

Unknown long-term effects

“Approximately 23,700 U.S. children undergo invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure annually, with unknown long-term effects on neurocognitive function,” the authors write.

“With improvements in pediatric critical care over the past several decades, critical illness–associated mortality has improved dramatically [but] as survivorship has increased, we are starting to learn that many patients and their families suffer from long-term morbidity associated with the illness and its treatment,” said Dr. Watson, who is the associate division chief, pediatric critical care medicine, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development.

Animal studies “have found that some sedative medications commonly used to keep children safe during mechanical ventilation may have detrimental neurologic effects, particularly in the developing brain,” Dr. Watson added.

To gain a better understanding of this potential association, the researchers turned to a subset of participants in the previously conducted Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) trial of pediatric patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.

For the current study (RESTORE-Cognition), multiple domains of neurocognitive function were assessed 3-8 years after hospital discharge in trial patients who did not have a history of neurocognitive dysfunction, as well as matched, healthy siblings.

To be included in the study, the children had to be ≤8 years old at trial enrollment, have a Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) score of 1 (normal) prior to PICU admission, and have no worse than moderate neurocognitive dysfunction at PICU discharge.

Siblings of enrolled patients were required to be between 4 and 16 years old at the time of neurocognitive testing, have a PCPC score of 1, have the same biological parents as the patient, and live with the patient.

The primary outcome was IQ, estimated by the age-appropriate Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Secondary outcomes included attention, processing speed, learning and memory, visuospatial skills, motor skills, language, and executive function. Enough time was allowed after hospitalization “for transient deficits to resolve and longer-lasting neurocognitive sequelae to manifest.”
 

‘Uncertain’ clinical importance

Of the 121 sibling pairs (67% non-Hispanic White, 47% from families in which one or both parents worked full-time), 116 were included in the primary outcome analysis, and 66-19 were included in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Patients had been in the PICU at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 1.0 (0.2-3.2) years and had received a median of 5.5 (3.1-7.7) days of invasive mechanical ventilation.

The median age at testing for patients and matched siblings was 6.6 (5.4-9.1) and 8.4 (7.0-10.2) years, respectively. Interviews with parents and testing of patients were conducted a median (IQR) of 3.8 (3.2-5.2) and 5.2 (4.3-6.1) years, respectively, after hospitalization.

The most common etiologies of respiratory failure were bronchiolitis and asthma and pneumonia (44% and 37%, respectively). Beyond respiratory failure, most patients (72%) also had experienced multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

Patients had a lower mean estimated IQ, compared with the matched siblings (101.5 vs. 104.3; mean difference, –2.8 [95% confidence interval, –5.4 to –0.2]), and more patients than siblings had an estimated IQ of ≤5 but not of ≤70.

Patients also had significantly lower scores on nonverbal memory, visuospatial skills, and fine motor control (mean differences, –0.9 [–1.6 to –0.3]; –0.9 [–1.8 to –.1]; and –-3.1 [–4.9 to –1.4], respectively), compared with matched siblings. They also had significantly higher scores on processing speed (mean difference, 4.4 [0.2-8.5]). There were no significant differences in the other secondary outcomes.

Differences in scores between patients and siblings varied significantly by age at hospitalization in several tests – for example, Block Design scores in patients were lower than those of siblings for patients hospitalized at <1 year old, versus those hospitalized between ages 4 and 8 years.

“When adjusting for patient age at PICU admission, patient age at testing, sibling age at testing, and duration between hospital discharge and testing, the difference in estimated IQ between patients and siblings remained statistically significantly different,” the authors note.

The investigators point out several limitations, including the fact that “little is known about sibling outcomes after critical illness, nor about whether parenting of siblings or child development differs based on birth order or on relationship between patient critical illness and the birth of siblings. ... If siblings also incur negative effects related to the critical illness, differences between critically ill children and the control siblings would be blunted.”

Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the patients and the matched controls, ultimately, the magnitude of the difference was “small and of uncertain clinical importance,” the authors conclude.
 

Filling a research gap

Commenting on the findings, Alexandre T. Rotta, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of the division of pediatric critical care medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said the study “addresses an important yet vastly understudied gap: long-term neurocognitive morbidity in children exposed to critical care.”

Dr. Rotta, who is also a coauthor of an accompanying editorial, noted that the fact that the “vast majority of children with an IQ significantly lower than their siblings were under the age of 4 years suggests that the developing immature brain may be particularly susceptible to the effects of critical illness and therapies required to treat it.”

The study “underscores the need to include assessments of long-term morbidity as part of any future trial evaluating interventions in pediatric critical care,” he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for RESTORE-Cognition and by grants for the RESTORE trial from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Watson and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rotta has received personal fees from Vapotherm for lecturing and development of educational materials and from Breas US for participation in a scientific advisory board, as well as royalties from Elsevier for editorial work outside the submitted work. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who survive an episode of acute respiratory failure that requires invasive mechanical ventilation may be at risk for slightly lower long-term neurocognitive function, new research suggests.

Investigators found lower IQs in children without previous neurocognitive problems who survived pediatric intensive care unit admission for acute respiratory failure, compared with their biological siblings.

Although this magnitude of difference was small on average, more than twice as many patients as siblings had an IQ of ≤85, and children hospitalized at the youngest ages did worse than their siblings.

“Children surviving acute respiratory failure may benefit from routine evaluation of neurocognitive function after hospital discharge and may require serial evaluation to identify deficits that emerge over the course of child’s continued development to facilitate early intervention to prevent disability and optimize school performance,” study investigator R. Scott Watson, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 1 in JAMA.
 

Unknown long-term effects

“Approximately 23,700 U.S. children undergo invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure annually, with unknown long-term effects on neurocognitive function,” the authors write.

“With improvements in pediatric critical care over the past several decades, critical illness–associated mortality has improved dramatically [but] as survivorship has increased, we are starting to learn that many patients and their families suffer from long-term morbidity associated with the illness and its treatment,” said Dr. Watson, who is the associate division chief, pediatric critical care medicine, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development.

Animal studies “have found that some sedative medications commonly used to keep children safe during mechanical ventilation may have detrimental neurologic effects, particularly in the developing brain,” Dr. Watson added.

To gain a better understanding of this potential association, the researchers turned to a subset of participants in the previously conducted Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) trial of pediatric patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.

For the current study (RESTORE-Cognition), multiple domains of neurocognitive function were assessed 3-8 years after hospital discharge in trial patients who did not have a history of neurocognitive dysfunction, as well as matched, healthy siblings.

To be included in the study, the children had to be ≤8 years old at trial enrollment, have a Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) score of 1 (normal) prior to PICU admission, and have no worse than moderate neurocognitive dysfunction at PICU discharge.

Siblings of enrolled patients were required to be between 4 and 16 years old at the time of neurocognitive testing, have a PCPC score of 1, have the same biological parents as the patient, and live with the patient.

The primary outcome was IQ, estimated by the age-appropriate Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Secondary outcomes included attention, processing speed, learning and memory, visuospatial skills, motor skills, language, and executive function. Enough time was allowed after hospitalization “for transient deficits to resolve and longer-lasting neurocognitive sequelae to manifest.”
 

‘Uncertain’ clinical importance

Of the 121 sibling pairs (67% non-Hispanic White, 47% from families in which one or both parents worked full-time), 116 were included in the primary outcome analysis, and 66-19 were included in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Patients had been in the PICU at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 1.0 (0.2-3.2) years and had received a median of 5.5 (3.1-7.7) days of invasive mechanical ventilation.

The median age at testing for patients and matched siblings was 6.6 (5.4-9.1) and 8.4 (7.0-10.2) years, respectively. Interviews with parents and testing of patients were conducted a median (IQR) of 3.8 (3.2-5.2) and 5.2 (4.3-6.1) years, respectively, after hospitalization.

The most common etiologies of respiratory failure were bronchiolitis and asthma and pneumonia (44% and 37%, respectively). Beyond respiratory failure, most patients (72%) also had experienced multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

Patients had a lower mean estimated IQ, compared with the matched siblings (101.5 vs. 104.3; mean difference, –2.8 [95% confidence interval, –5.4 to –0.2]), and more patients than siblings had an estimated IQ of ≤5 but not of ≤70.

Patients also had significantly lower scores on nonverbal memory, visuospatial skills, and fine motor control (mean differences, –0.9 [–1.6 to –0.3]; –0.9 [–1.8 to –.1]; and –-3.1 [–4.9 to –1.4], respectively), compared with matched siblings. They also had significantly higher scores on processing speed (mean difference, 4.4 [0.2-8.5]). There were no significant differences in the other secondary outcomes.

Differences in scores between patients and siblings varied significantly by age at hospitalization in several tests – for example, Block Design scores in patients were lower than those of siblings for patients hospitalized at <1 year old, versus those hospitalized between ages 4 and 8 years.

“When adjusting for patient age at PICU admission, patient age at testing, sibling age at testing, and duration between hospital discharge and testing, the difference in estimated IQ between patients and siblings remained statistically significantly different,” the authors note.

The investigators point out several limitations, including the fact that “little is known about sibling outcomes after critical illness, nor about whether parenting of siblings or child development differs based on birth order or on relationship between patient critical illness and the birth of siblings. ... If siblings also incur negative effects related to the critical illness, differences between critically ill children and the control siblings would be blunted.”

Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the patients and the matched controls, ultimately, the magnitude of the difference was “small and of uncertain clinical importance,” the authors conclude.
 

Filling a research gap

Commenting on the findings, Alexandre T. Rotta, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of the division of pediatric critical care medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said the study “addresses an important yet vastly understudied gap: long-term neurocognitive morbidity in children exposed to critical care.”

Dr. Rotta, who is also a coauthor of an accompanying editorial, noted that the fact that the “vast majority of children with an IQ significantly lower than their siblings were under the age of 4 years suggests that the developing immature brain may be particularly susceptible to the effects of critical illness and therapies required to treat it.”

The study “underscores the need to include assessments of long-term morbidity as part of any future trial evaluating interventions in pediatric critical care,” he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for RESTORE-Cognition and by grants for the RESTORE trial from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Watson and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rotta has received personal fees from Vapotherm for lecturing and development of educational materials and from Breas US for participation in a scientific advisory board, as well as royalties from Elsevier for editorial work outside the submitted work. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

TikTok users seeking deep tans are employing a questionable method: spraying self-tanning products up their noses, and then laying out in the sun or in a tanning bed.

Although nasal spray tanning is being described as a new “viral” trend, it seems to have gotten its start as early as the spring of 2021. The tanning method appears to be especially popular in the United Kingdom, where self-tanning product brands have TikTok videos promoting nasal sprays.

The rising concerns of this and other viral TikTok trends has now prompted a bipartisan group of seven state attorneys general to launch an investigation.

“As children and teens already grapple with issues of anxiety, social pressure, and depression, we cannot allow social media to further harm their physical health and mental wellbeing,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “State attorneys general have an imperative to protect young people and seek more information about how companies like TikTok are influencing their daily lives.”

Ms. Healey, along with colleagues from California, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont, will whether Chinese-based TikTok violates state consumer protection laws.

The trend of people shooting spray tan up their nose is just the latest in a long line of so-called TikTok challenges that have caused controversy, and often, injury.

In a February TikTok, put out by the British company So Tanned (@_sotanned), a young woman appears with text stating that she uses nasal spray “morning and night” and then adds self-tanning oral drops a half hour before getting into a tanning bed.

But, dermatologist Lily Talakoub, MD, of McLean, Va., posted a TikTok with the bold warning “DO NOT USE NASAL TANNING SPRAY!” In the video, the white coat–clad Dr. Talakoub is in the foreground of the TikTok made by @Sashawoodx.

“Don’t try this at home,” said Dr. Talakoub.

“Don’t try this even if you think it can make you tanner. It can cause nausea, vomiting, very bad side effects,” she said, adding “this can be very dangerous to your health.”

It’s also worth mentioning that self-tanning products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for inhalation.

Still, another U.K. company, 2btanned, posted a TikTok showing a user spraying the product up his nose and, in the comments, @2btanned suggested that the spray should be used at least a week or two before sun exposure “in order to get full effects.”

@Sashawoodx tells her viewers: “Don’t walk ... RUN for these products,” as she shows herself in several different outfits, squirting 2btanned spray up her nose. As of March 2, the TikTok video had been viewed over 212,000 times.

TikTokker @giannaarose, who has 125,000 followers, said in a video that she uses two to three sprays up the nose before stepping into the tanning bed. A commenter said, “this is scary but where do I buy it”.

The main ingredient in self-tanning products is dihydroxyacetone, or DHA. DHA, which is FDA-approved for use on skin, causes a chemical reaction when heat is applied, and a pigment is deposited on the skin.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said, given that self-tanning products were never meant to be inhaled and that nasal sprays of any kind must be approved by the FDA, a company promoting the products is engaged in a dangerous game.

“People could go to jail over this,” said Dr. Friedman. What’s more, the products are unlikely to produce a tan.

“Because of the way self-tanners work, it would make no sense,” said Dr. Friedman.

“It’s purely a camouflage,” he said, adding that it does not produce melanin. Self-tanners were never intended to be inhaled, “so who knows what those ingredients would do to a different anatomical site like the inner passages of the nose.”

At a minimum, spraying into the nose could at cause irritation. But it could also potentially lead to acute or long-term damage, he said.

Some other spray ingredients, such as tyrosine and tyrosinase, are involved in producing melanin, but they only act within skin cells. If sprayed into the nose, the ingredients might produce melanin inside the nose, but not on the skin.

“This is not going to work,” said Dr. Friedman. “If anything, it could be dangerous.”

He added that there’s no such thing as a safe tan, and that self-tanning products offer no protection from dangerous ultraviolet rays. The nasal sprays are “quick fixes” that are not going to work.

“At the end of the day, just don’t inhale,” Dr. Friedman said.

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

TikTok users seeking deep tans are employing a questionable method: spraying self-tanning products up their noses, and then laying out in the sun or in a tanning bed.

Although nasal spray tanning is being described as a new “viral” trend, it seems to have gotten its start as early as the spring of 2021. The tanning method appears to be especially popular in the United Kingdom, where self-tanning product brands have TikTok videos promoting nasal sprays.

The rising concerns of this and other viral TikTok trends has now prompted a bipartisan group of seven state attorneys general to launch an investigation.

“As children and teens already grapple with issues of anxiety, social pressure, and depression, we cannot allow social media to further harm their physical health and mental wellbeing,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “State attorneys general have an imperative to protect young people and seek more information about how companies like TikTok are influencing their daily lives.”

Ms. Healey, along with colleagues from California, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont, will whether Chinese-based TikTok violates state consumer protection laws.

The trend of people shooting spray tan up their nose is just the latest in a long line of so-called TikTok challenges that have caused controversy, and often, injury.

In a February TikTok, put out by the British company So Tanned (@_sotanned), a young woman appears with text stating that she uses nasal spray “morning and night” and then adds self-tanning oral drops a half hour before getting into a tanning bed.

But, dermatologist Lily Talakoub, MD, of McLean, Va., posted a TikTok with the bold warning “DO NOT USE NASAL TANNING SPRAY!” In the video, the white coat–clad Dr. Talakoub is in the foreground of the TikTok made by @Sashawoodx.

“Don’t try this at home,” said Dr. Talakoub.

“Don’t try this even if you think it can make you tanner. It can cause nausea, vomiting, very bad side effects,” she said, adding “this can be very dangerous to your health.”

It’s also worth mentioning that self-tanning products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for inhalation.

Still, another U.K. company, 2btanned, posted a TikTok showing a user spraying the product up his nose and, in the comments, @2btanned suggested that the spray should be used at least a week or two before sun exposure “in order to get full effects.”

@Sashawoodx tells her viewers: “Don’t walk ... RUN for these products,” as she shows herself in several different outfits, squirting 2btanned spray up her nose. As of March 2, the TikTok video had been viewed over 212,000 times.

TikTokker @giannaarose, who has 125,000 followers, said in a video that she uses two to three sprays up the nose before stepping into the tanning bed. A commenter said, “this is scary but where do I buy it”.

The main ingredient in self-tanning products is dihydroxyacetone, or DHA. DHA, which is FDA-approved for use on skin, causes a chemical reaction when heat is applied, and a pigment is deposited on the skin.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said, given that self-tanning products were never meant to be inhaled and that nasal sprays of any kind must be approved by the FDA, a company promoting the products is engaged in a dangerous game.

“People could go to jail over this,” said Dr. Friedman. What’s more, the products are unlikely to produce a tan.

“Because of the way self-tanners work, it would make no sense,” said Dr. Friedman.

“It’s purely a camouflage,” he said, adding that it does not produce melanin. Self-tanners were never intended to be inhaled, “so who knows what those ingredients would do to a different anatomical site like the inner passages of the nose.”

At a minimum, spraying into the nose could at cause irritation. But it could also potentially lead to acute or long-term damage, he said.

Some other spray ingredients, such as tyrosine and tyrosinase, are involved in producing melanin, but they only act within skin cells. If sprayed into the nose, the ingredients might produce melanin inside the nose, but not on the skin.

“This is not going to work,” said Dr. Friedman. “If anything, it could be dangerous.”

He added that there’s no such thing as a safe tan, and that self-tanning products offer no protection from dangerous ultraviolet rays. The nasal sprays are “quick fixes” that are not going to work.

“At the end of the day, just don’t inhale,” Dr. Friedman said.

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

TikTok users seeking deep tans are employing a questionable method: spraying self-tanning products up their noses, and then laying out in the sun or in a tanning bed.

Although nasal spray tanning is being described as a new “viral” trend, it seems to have gotten its start as early as the spring of 2021. The tanning method appears to be especially popular in the United Kingdom, where self-tanning product brands have TikTok videos promoting nasal sprays.

The rising concerns of this and other viral TikTok trends has now prompted a bipartisan group of seven state attorneys general to launch an investigation.

“As children and teens already grapple with issues of anxiety, social pressure, and depression, we cannot allow social media to further harm their physical health and mental wellbeing,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “State attorneys general have an imperative to protect young people and seek more information about how companies like TikTok are influencing their daily lives.”

Ms. Healey, along with colleagues from California, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont, will whether Chinese-based TikTok violates state consumer protection laws.

The trend of people shooting spray tan up their nose is just the latest in a long line of so-called TikTok challenges that have caused controversy, and often, injury.

In a February TikTok, put out by the British company So Tanned (@_sotanned), a young woman appears with text stating that she uses nasal spray “morning and night” and then adds self-tanning oral drops a half hour before getting into a tanning bed.

But, dermatologist Lily Talakoub, MD, of McLean, Va., posted a TikTok with the bold warning “DO NOT USE NASAL TANNING SPRAY!” In the video, the white coat–clad Dr. Talakoub is in the foreground of the TikTok made by @Sashawoodx.

“Don’t try this at home,” said Dr. Talakoub.

“Don’t try this even if you think it can make you tanner. It can cause nausea, vomiting, very bad side effects,” she said, adding “this can be very dangerous to your health.”

It’s also worth mentioning that self-tanning products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for inhalation.

Still, another U.K. company, 2btanned, posted a TikTok showing a user spraying the product up his nose and, in the comments, @2btanned suggested that the spray should be used at least a week or two before sun exposure “in order to get full effects.”

@Sashawoodx tells her viewers: “Don’t walk ... RUN for these products,” as she shows herself in several different outfits, squirting 2btanned spray up her nose. As of March 2, the TikTok video had been viewed over 212,000 times.

TikTokker @giannaarose, who has 125,000 followers, said in a video that she uses two to three sprays up the nose before stepping into the tanning bed. A commenter said, “this is scary but where do I buy it”.

The main ingredient in self-tanning products is dihydroxyacetone, or DHA. DHA, which is FDA-approved for use on skin, causes a chemical reaction when heat is applied, and a pigment is deposited on the skin.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said, given that self-tanning products were never meant to be inhaled and that nasal sprays of any kind must be approved by the FDA, a company promoting the products is engaged in a dangerous game.

“People could go to jail over this,” said Dr. Friedman. What’s more, the products are unlikely to produce a tan.

“Because of the way self-tanners work, it would make no sense,” said Dr. Friedman.

“It’s purely a camouflage,” he said, adding that it does not produce melanin. Self-tanners were never intended to be inhaled, “so who knows what those ingredients would do to a different anatomical site like the inner passages of the nose.”

At a minimum, spraying into the nose could at cause irritation. But it could also potentially lead to acute or long-term damage, he said.

Some other spray ingredients, such as tyrosine and tyrosinase, are involved in producing melanin, but they only act within skin cells. If sprayed into the nose, the ingredients might produce melanin inside the nose, but not on the skin.

“This is not going to work,” said Dr. Friedman. “If anything, it could be dangerous.”

He added that there’s no such thing as a safe tan, and that self-tanning products offer no protection from dangerous ultraviolet rays. The nasal sprays are “quick fixes” that are not going to work.

“At the end of the day, just don’t inhale,” Dr. Friedman said.

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.